Command Ranks

[Whalenator]

>Click Here (www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0c9fsWP3sg#t=03m29s)<

Matt Higby: "It's almost like twitter! Where you have three people that you can follow basically, and based on their current number of followers they can put missions in that are higher level or lower level. So you can have like one dude on your server that's like the most badass guy on the NC, and you want to follow him because he's always creating badass missions. You might also want to follow your guild leader because the Guild Leader is going to kick you out of the fucking guild unless you follow him -- So you're going to follow him for now, right? So you're following that dude, and maybe you're following some other guy too. And[sic] these guys are able to get missions from all three of these guys, but their missions are based on the number of people who are actually following them. So the most effective leaders are getting uh...the most followers, and therefore getting the best bonuses for doing stuff. We thinks it's a really cool system that could work really well, it's speculated at that time whether or not that's how we'll actually implement it. But that's the design at it stands now."

Now, I for one do not ever want to see the competition for high Command Ranks turn into a popularity contest. The game already has been dumbed down enough to let converts from all sorts of simpler titles transition to Planetside: For example, the game moves at faster pace and has a significantly smaller vehicle pool. Now while those changes aren't inherently bad, they do present a conflict with the proposed Command Rank system.

Higby assumed in the interview that players would pick the commanders most fit for their role. As I stated earlier, the player base of Planetside 2 will be larger and wider. Not all of those moving from different games will appreciate Planetside's use of strategy in the large scale. Even less will actually care to participate. I'm unsure whether Higby intended for missions created to be viewable by squad, outfit, followers or faction, but in any case this "twitter-themed" style is a dangerous road.

Now I hope the previous statements do not express that I am vehemently opposed to the idea of a follower-run command system. In fact, I'm far from it. But it's a fine line we're treading on. I can only imagine and fear the imminent avalanche of a popularity contest this would turn into. But I love you anyways, higgles.

also where is my freelook

[Sirisian]

The game already has been dumbed down enough to let converts from all sorts of simpler titles transition to Planetside: For example, the game moves at faster pace and has a significantly smaller vehicle pool. Now while those changes aren't inherently bad, they do present a conflict with the proposed Command Rank system.
Focus on what you quoted. It's a poor form of debate/discussion to try to relate something totally unrelated to another game feature to make a point.

Higby assumed in the interview that players would pick the commanders most fit for their role. As I stated earlier, the player base of Planetside 2 will be larger and wider. Not all of those moving from different games will appreciate Planetside's use of strategy in the large scale. Even less will actually care to participate. I'm unsure whether Higby intended for missions created to be viewable by squad, outfit, followers or faction, but in any case this "twitter-themed" style is a dangerous road.
It's an excellent system. It allows people to register for essentially missions they want to do. They don't have to listen to hundreds of commanders trying to direct them around which was a problem in PS1. You're going to see a group of skilled leaders form. Not all of them will be on all the time or in the same regions you want to fight.

[Whalenator]

Focus on what you quoted. It's a poor form of debate/discussion to try to relate something totally unrelated to another game feature to make a point.

Thank you for personally criticizing my methods of relating topics, something I did for the sole purpose of allowing a better understanding of the topic as a whole.

It's an excellent system. It allows people to register for essentially missions they want to do. They don't have to listen to hundreds of commanders trying to direct them around which was a problem in PS1. You're going to see a group of skilled leaders form. Not all of them will be on all the time or in the same regions you want to fight.

Sirisian; I'm not sure you understand what I meant, or what higby was explaining. (correct me if I'm mistaken) When he said it was like twitter, it wasn't necessarily that you would only receive missions from commanders you followed, just that by following them you provided them with the ability of making larger missions. Again, people will advertise desperately for a spot. Anyone with popularity can register and "command".

[Death2All]

I understand your concern for the game. Anyone with a large following, say a very popular Youtuber could ask all his channel to all follow him on PS2 and suddenly he has access to all the high tier command abilities and can basically control all of his followers.


On the other spectrum you do not HAVE to follow that person. I think we'll certainly be able to wade through the bullshit, it's still a potential problem though.

I do like their take on commanding this time around. It's for people who actually WANT to do it, instead of people who just happened to grind for it and suddenly they can global immature messages to EVERYONE in the world on their empire.

I guess it's something that will have to be carefully looked at and implemented properly in beta.

[Marsman]

The idea has merit, but it needs to be expanded to include results as a leader... a form of rank that indicates success.

In PS1 we saw a fair amount of "we'll take anyone" type outfits. I would hate to see one of these take one of their leaders to the top of the charts simple because they have huge outfit numbers - it says nothing about how "well" this person is as a leader - simple that they're popular. It shouldn't become a popularity contest by followers alone.

It needs to be tied with the effectiveness of a leader... how many of their missions are successful.. are they good missions? Do their missions achieve results for their empire? Some way to quantify their ability to be effective - not just someone with the most followers.

[Sardus]

I think the system will work well as long as you are able to take.. let's say.. up to three missions as a time.

It generally follows the same concept as PS1... people listen to the commanders (CR5s) that do a good job, and treat people well. It was pretty clear when someone logged in that he or she was worth listening to.

This system encourages good leaders to succeed, but by allowing you to take up to 3 missions at a time for example, it reduces the "popularity" contest thing.

And of course it should be designed in such a way that following your outfit leader gives the largest bonus, followed by squad leaders, and then "empire commanders". If those align and you actually get credit for multiple missions at once, is that such a bad thing? Synergy means you're doing it right.

[Bittermen]

you probably have to have some sort of to skill to create missions in the first place... correct?

[Tom Peters]

I don't like how he says "you have three people you can follow basically." It sounds like they're be putting an unnecessary cap on it. The more leaders you follow, the more missions you'll be able to look through to find one that meets your specifications.

This is clearly going to be an important part of the command structure of Planetside 2, and they still have plenty of time left to redux it if need be.

[nomotog]

Seems like a rather democratic way to do command. We kind of need more details to make any judgement though.

[Reni]

...It needs to be tied with the effectiveness of a leader... how many of their missions are successful.. are they good missions? Do their missions achieve results for their empire? Some way to quantify their ability to be effective - not just someone with the most followers.

^^This.

I'm sorry but if this only results in a popularity contest then this shit is going to get old QUICK. Plus...we are going to get bombarded with messages like, "hey will you follow me cuz i tink i can cmd and be rlly dope yo". :rolleyes:

[Garem]

I kind of like the free-market style of this. I mean, winning popularity contests does mean something. You're popular enough for people to listen to you, whatever that reason may be.

It seems a little crazy to immediately dismiss someone based on these grounds alone. They probably got to being popular for a reason.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but the "zoMg no popularity contests plz" argument doesn't hold. If they offer bad missions, oh well, they're not going to be as well rewarded as the good commander that only the good players know about.

Most importantly perhaps, popularity should definitely play a role at least somehow. If you're an asshole commander but you're GREAT at it, who gives a shit? This is a game. People shouldn't be pushed to play with people they don't want to play with by disincentivizing their free choices to do so.

Free markets on commanders, I say. Let the people choose based on whatever criteria they wish, not what this community (or any other community) thinks is in their best interests.

[Sardus]

Created a thread on some ideas I had

http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39477

Please feel free to comment

[Ragotag]

I really like Higby's idea regarding the number of followers dictating the size of the mission that a leader can create, but I might suggest a slight change to the leadership system in support of the valid concerns voiced thus far.

I am pretty sure that the Dev's have already implied that the mission creation ability can only be acquired somewhat deeply into the Leadership CERT tree. If this is the case, I would suggest instead of spending acquired Resource Points to unlock such Leadership CERT's, that a point system specific to the Leadership CERT tree be utilized; call them Command Points. Command Points would then be a special resource earned by Squad Leaders only, and spent only on the Leadership CERT tree. In order to earn Command Points, a squad leader must lead his/her squad in a successful mission.

IMO, this should be enough to reduce the potential of popularity contest style politicking while allowing those successful leadership players reasonable access to the mission creation ability. Everything else would likely balance out as per Higby's idea.

[Figment]

I just wonder how you are going to compare and get to know if a leader is worth following.

[Hermes]

Stand by your results :)

Sure some guy may have more people following him because of borrowed popularity, but if you consistently do a better job word should eventually spread. You might not be able to fully overcome the inertia of a big name in a guild alliance, but that shouldnt bother you. If people are happy eating crap then they should be free to eat crap. ;)

All in, I think it's a fascinating idea!

As a side note, history and literature is scattered with references of a weak/crazy leader or king being preferable to revolution because there is strength in the unity of following them...

[ringring]

I just wonder how you are going to compare and get to know if a leader is worth following.

lol yea.

I don't like it. Too elitist.

you know the current method worked fine, at least until servers merged into Gemini and pops dropped low.

I know on Werner TR we used to work out our priorities pretty well using command chat alone. If we were undecided on a target someone would call for a vote.

There was no counter-globalling.

In the early days with larger pops there used to be continental commanders for each cont we were fighting on.

Two further points .... if a large outfit doesn't agree and don't have one of these 'super commanders' they'll go elsewhere no matter what the 'supermen' say.
If an person in a platoon obeys a 'super commander' rather than their platoon leader .... kicky kicky and platoon commanders+outfits are undermined.

[Warborn]

I like the idea. They should add a "leader browser" where you can see all the people who've signed up as a leader and maybe those potential leaders can write a brief statement about what kind of missions they'll be making.

Also, I laughed at the "I don't want to see leadership become a popularity contest" remark. It is a popularity contest. And besides, it's approximately thirteen billion times better than the stupid command rank system in PS1. Oh hey, I spent a couple months spam-inviting people to my squads, now I can talk on global chat to let everyone in my empire know I'm a big retard. Great command system.

[CutterJohn]

Well, I like that its not a rank, so thats good. I'm not too keen on the implementation, though, and as OP says, the fact that 'following' them is devoid of any effort or sacrifice on another players part just means there will be popularity contest aspects to it.

I personally feel that you should only get 1 'follow', and thats your squad leader. Your squad leader can then follow the platoon leader, and the platoon leader follows the brigade leader, etc, and these are the people who get command tools and can set missions.

Does two things. First, you have to put your money where your mouth is by actually joining up with the person you want in charge.

2nd, it kind forms a series of delegates, i.e. the squad leaders, platoon leaders, etc, who will be more likely to know whats going on.

[Figment]

Another thing is that it may lead to a more fractured, incoherent empire strategy. So I'd really like to know how this is coordinated between commanders. :)

[Skitrel]

Well, I like that its not a rank, so thats good. I'm not too keen on the implementation, though, and as OP says, the fact that 'following' them is devoid of any effort or sacrifice on another players part just means there will be popularity contest aspects to it.

I personally feel that you should only get 1 'follow', and thats your squad leader. Your squad leader can then follow the platoon leader, and the platoon leader follows the brigade leader, etc, and these are the people who get command tools and can set missions.

Does two things. First, you have to put your money where your mouth is by actually joining up with the person you want in charge.

2nd, it kind forms a series of delegates, i.e. the squad leaders, platoon leaders, etc, who will be more likely to know whats going on.

This works and I'm for it. Instead of all the players following x commander taking up missions individually it would work like this: Platoon leaders have missions given by the commander, they set there own missions with the goal of accomplishing the mission, the squad leaders have these missions and set their own goals for their squads in order to accomplish their goals.

Tie it all together with a good voip system and you've got something that works well, has a command structure and won't turn into a giant mess of hundreds of people all trying to achieve the same goal via the same orders but instead via unit group tactics on the ground, on the initiative of the leaders of every group.

Allow squad leaders to speak to their squad on 1 button and their platoon leaders on another. Allow platoon leaders to speak to each individual squad leader or to all squad leaders at once. Allow Commander to speak to platoon leaders.

Tie all of it together with directional/area/distance voip so that players on the ground can converse with other squads directly around them too, allowing on the fly tactics or warnings based on the current situation, or warning that vanguard patrol of trouble up ahead as they're about to steam past you into a horde, and you've got a winner.

I really think area/distance based voip will be the thing that can pull people away from private voip, works phenomenally well in Project Reality. I will personally fucking hate every idiot on private voip that can't contribute or hear the needs or warnings of the rest of his faction. It is the most annoying thing on PR, a person not able to hear those around him is completely and utterly useless.

[ringring]

I like the idea. They should add a "leader browser" where you can see all the people who've signed up as a leader and maybe those potential leaders can write a brief statement about what kind of missions they'll be making.

Also, I laughed at the "I don't want to see leadership become a popularity contest" remark. It is a popularity contest. And besides, it's approximately thirteen billion times better than the stupid command rank system in PS1. Oh hey, I spent a couple months spam-inviting people to my squads, now I can talk on global chat to let everyone in my empire know I'm a big retard. Great command system.
In my outfit we don't have an outfit leader we have 5. These five form a council who, well, lead the outfit both in game and out.

In addition to that we have senior and junior officers who would lead squads in game.

We'd produce a lot of cr5's. However, we made sure that everyone that got cr5 earned it by leading the platoon properly. Properly mean not spam inviting then slpping down a waypoint but choosing considered strategic/tactical targets, deciding on the mode of attack/defence and issuing instructions to carry out the plan.

This is a big step backwards imho. At the moment is sounds like we're getting a faster fps and a zerg mentality.

[Sabrak]

I see what you did here, Higby!

You know you're gonna get the most "followers", which would officially, and in-game, give you the New Conglomerate High Commander rank.

[Coreldan]

I think the system sounds cool in a way, but say, if I'm the leader of my outfit and require my members to follow me, can I follow someone higher up?

I sorta planned my outfit to be more of the.. executing sort. Take the orders from a big time commanders and just focus on leading my bunch. So yeah, can I follow "the badassest" leader of NC and then select a mission from him, that then my guys get?

I guess there is a chance this wont work out as they had planned, some scenarios were already brought up here, I guess then they'll just have to change it in beta. I guess sorta like the addition of lattice system :D

[megamold]

i like the sound of the new system, it might be a popularity contest in some cases where the guy is not a leader and still has quite the following
but i think the actual great leaders will have many more.
and since you can pick and choose wich players you want to follow ,its your own choice so i will only have descent leaders in my list

i think the leaders should be rated outside of the number of followers with some sort of "score" but the cr5 thing wasnt perfect either cause after a while you get a buttload of cr5's and you have no clue if they are actually any good cause they might have just farmed a long time for the xp, just to be able to say "hey look at me im cr5! watch me OS this tree!"

[SpLiTNuTz]

Bring back cr5 back packs!

[Mightymouser]

The biggest problem I see with this is that Outfit Leaders of large outfits are automatically going to be at the top of the list. As anyone who played PS1 for any length of time knows, the largest outfits were zergfits which invited anyone who had [No Outfit] under their name; these people shouldn't be sent to the top of the command structure just because they can type /outfitinvite, and then tell everyone to 'follow' them...

I think the most ideal way to solve this would be to simply make it so you automatically 'follow' your outfit commander(s), and then not count those intra-outfit followers as part of a commander's actual count. It's still a 'popularity contest', but at least this way the system isn't skewed towards the larger outfits.


Also, does this only affect the mission system? Is there perhaps still another path to /c channels and /comXX channels (if such channels still exist)? I'd like to see /c saved at least, as there were many valuable discussions held there (despite the spam); and it really helped build the feeling of intra-empire leadership. I don't think it could really be replaced by /sl or /pl (channels which both exist in PS1, and which are both relatively useless), primarily because there are times when multiple people from an outfit (who are likely squaded together) all have valuable input to give, and veterans (here meaning PS2 veterans, who have earned their stripes in the new game) should have constant access to the channel so the empire can benefit from their experience.


Edit: Another flaw I can imagine here would be that this system would seemingly make it very difficult to 'unseat' an older commander, meaning once a person made it to the top of this list, it would be difficult for a new commander to ever shine through his shadow. This wasn't an issue with the PS1 system, as all CR5s were essentially equal (except that players learned who to listen to, and who to ignore); however if the new system is going to have some sort of hierarchy, how are new commanders going to get the chance to advance? (especially as the game ages, and a commander might have many 'followers' who don't even log in anymore, though I suppose that could be solved by putting a time-out on 'following')

[Mastachief]

How about startrek online system of star ratings for user set missions.

Listing the outfit that said leader is in and let people use that along with a star rating to gauge their interest in missions.

So for example:
xXiliketodefendtheccinasparrowXx - Bluelions(1390 Members) - 5/5star rating over 2months

Hmm lets not do that one folks.

Or

Braveheart - MercenaryS (80 Members) - 4.8star rating over 2years

Kinda along the lines of popular auction sites, leaders would build reputation properly over time based on quality rather than quantity ratings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally i am really keen to see a better command structure than planetside has, I became CR5 around Christmas 2003 iirc and it had already started to go downhill. Then they made it ridiculously easy to get without having to actually earn your knowledge by actively leading squads.

[WarChimp130]

I think this is one of those things that will start out annoying but work itself out. If a certain person keeps making missions that fail people are going to stop following them eventually. Personal greed for xp and resources should see to that. So while it might start out that some zerging moron has a ton of followers, as they lose missions they should followers.

It should sort itself out within a few weeks I imagine.

[ringring]

There is a big lack of detail on this idea. For instance:
How do the 'leaders' get elected?
How long do they serve?
Does every single individual sign up to the 'great leader' missions?
Do the candidates conduct election campaigns? ;)

Perhaps with 5k people per continent and with an expected huge influx of casual players something more than the old ps command mechanism is necessary. However I would first go in the direction of adding more structure, ie squad/platoons/companies/Brigades.

The two aspects of ps that made people continue with it for so long were their outfits/friends and the metagame ... by whatever method the new game needs these too.

[Warborn]

There is a big lack of detail on this idea. For instance:
How do the 'leaders' get elected?
How long do they serve?
Does every single individual sign up to the 'great leader' missions?
Do the candidates conduct election campaigns? ;)

Higby didn't imply this was an actual elected leadership thing. Having it work where people "subscribe" to certain leaders solves the problem itself. Let anyone essentially put themselves forward as a leader, and let people naturally gravitate toward the person who is setting missions that produce the best results while also being around the most to provide those missions. That's what people who weren't bogged down in partisan foolishness did in PS1. The guys who were around consistently and weren't drooling retards had people listen to them when they called for a shift to a new continent or whatever.

Also, the old command rank system was completely irredeemable and virtually none of the people who were CR5 were CR5 because they were anything like good leaders. Smart outfits naturally worked toward building up a roster of people with CR5 to get more orbital strikes/EMPs/etc to throw around. Letting leaders become apparent organically, based on nothing more than the results they produce, and not tying stupid shit like orbital strikes to the thing, that's a far better way to handle command rank. So this is absolutely a step forward. Anything that departs from PS1's system is a step forward at this point.

The only caveat is that if literally anyone can just put themselves forward as mission-providing leaders for their entire empire you might wind up with too many, making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. So perhaps only people who are paying for the game via a membership should be able to set missions and function as leaders.

[DayOne]

I think the missions should pass down through the chain of command, something like this:

Squad A\
Squad B.\
..............|--Outfit leader A\
Squad C./..........................\
Squad D/.............................\
............................................|---Random good leader guy
Squad A\............................../
Squad B.\.........................../
..............|--Outfit leader B/
Squad C./
Squad D/

Random leader guy sets a mission. The outfit leaders following him see that mission and can now pass parts of that mission down to their squad leaders. who go about completing the mission with their squad.

Example:
Random leader guy sets mission to take a base.

Outfit A is mostly air units, the leader sets squads A, B, C to give air cover in that region. Mission XP is earned by keeping air units in that area and taking out enemy air units.

Leader A then sets squad D, their infantry units, to go into the base and capture it.

Meanwhile outfit B is an infantry specialised outfit. The leader sends all squads into the base to capture it. The outfit leader will tell the squad leaders where to attack. Outfit A, squad D will be relieved that there is an infantry outfit there to support them.

[nomotog]

I just wonder how you are going to compare and get to know if a leader is worth following.

I think the commanders are going to have to advertise.

[Death2All]

The biggest problem I see with this is that Outfit Leaders of large outfits are automatically going to be at the top of the list. As anyone who played PS1 for any length of time knows, the largest outfits were zergfits which invited anyone who had [No Outfit] under their name; these people shouldn't be sent to the top of the command structure just because they can type /outfitinvite, and then tell everyone to 'follow' them...

I think the most ideal way to solve this would be to simply make it so you automatically 'follow' your outfit commander(s), and then not count those intra-outfit followers as part of a commander's actual count. It's still a 'popularity contest', but at least this way the system isn't skewed towards the larger outfits.


Also, does this only affect the mission system? Is there perhaps still another path to /c channels and /comXX channels (if such channels still exist)? I'd like to see /c saved at least, as there were many valuable discussions held there (despite the spam); and it really helped build the feeling of intra-empire leadership. I don't think it could really be replaced by /sl or /pl (channels which both exist in PS1, and which are both relatively useless), primarily because there are times when multiple people from an outfit (who are likely squaded together) all have valuable input to give, and veterans (here meaning PS2 veterans, who have earned their stripes in the new game) should have constant access to the channel so the empire can benefit from their experience.



They could perhaps make it so that you would have to be a certain BR, Outfit rank within the outfit and acquire a certain number of outfit points (assuming their are outfit points) to be able to follow a commander. A potential way to prevent outfit leaders from getting a ton of easy zerg followers.

I think they hinted that /c chat could be coming back. I think it could be a WHOLE lot better this time around as leadership is more of a choice than a separate XP bar to grind out. It would be really bad to hinder commanders and make them unable to communicate and coordinate with one another.

[WarrantOfficer]

There isn't really a 'popularity' contest as you would probably imagine in this system, a similar setup is in Aces High 2 which features a persistent world and anyone can create a mission.

The only real issue I could see with this is if the community closes itself off and never communicates ingame (see Xbox Live) If that happens missions will very quickly turn from public orginazation into 'friends only' sort of things, which is just awful. Players should be willing to organize and associate with other players they don't know.

When good commanders are being ignored by pubs ingame that would rather do their own deleterious action and bring the collective down rather than co-operate with the team, it will be the end of team work in planetside. People that played NC recently in PS1 will know what I mean, a good 50% of the NC pop would rather shoot phoenixs at empty bases all day instead of defending planet capitals.

[Coreldan]

I think the missions should pass down through the chain of command, something like this:

Squad A
Squad B.
..............|--Outfit leader A
Squad C./..........................
Squad D/.............................
............................................|---Random good leader guy
Squad A............................../
Squad B............................/
..............|--Outfit leader B/
Squad C./
Squad D/

Random leader guy sets a mission. The outfit leaders following him see that mission and can now pass parts of that mission down to their squad leaders. who go about completing the mission with their squad.

Example:
Random leader guy sets mission to take a base.

Outfit A is mostly air units, the leader sets squads A, B, C to give air cover in that region. Mission XP is earned by keeping air units in that area and taking out enemy air units.

Leader A then sets squad D, their infantry units, to go into the base and capture it.

Meanwhile outfit B is an infantry specialised outfit. The leader sends all squads into the base to capture it. The outfit leader will tell the squad leaders where to attack. Outfit A, squad D will be relieved that there is an infantry outfit there to support them.

This is exactly what I want too! I think it can still be done in the twitter fashion. The outfit leaders "follow" the "badass leader" who can give the orders to outfit leaders, from which outfit leaders select what do they do or even give their own squads several different missions (depending what kind of missions we are talking about).

But how does that go together with people outside outfits. I guess random squads can also follow the badass leader and take on assignments. But I do agree that there definitely needs to be some good chain of command kinda thing where the outfit leader being followed doenst have to make the plans himself. Good outfit leader isnt necessarily the best strategist :D

[robocpf1]

A couple of points -

We don't know whether this "follower" system will be permanent out of game. I'd much rather envision this as a system where you only see how many people someone is being followed by that are currently in-game, right then. Someone made the point that people that start earlier in the game will have thousands of followers and it will be difficult for new commanders to catch up or get out of that person's shadow - I think (I HOPE) this is a non-issue. Twitter is a good analogy for the basic idea, but Twitter is a permanent-follower system. You click "follow" then you follow that person until the end of time or until you unfollow them.

In PS2, I'm imagining you have to choose who to follow every time you log in. Otherwise people can make loads of alts to follow them and never log them in again. You log in, see "Oh hey CommanderX is online" and click to follow them. When you log off, you're no longer following him actively (perhaps there is a "non-active" follower list so you can save favorites, but this wouldn't affect what kind of missions the commander can deploy). So the number that gives a commander that ability to deploy better missions is directly based on how many followers he has that are online, right then.

In answer to someone else's point about a different cert point system for CR, I have to disagree. By having the same cert points for all the branches, even leadership, you ensure that people have to sacrifice some of their equipment to be leaders, which weeds out some of the people that just want to shout at people. If they have to choose between being a leader and having a super rifle, a lot of people will take the rifle.

On the note of large outfits being unjustly powerful - again, I don't see it as a real issue. It's always a matter of choice - just because HugeOutfitLeader1 has all of his outfit following him, you don't have to. But you CAN, and in some cases why wouldn't you? What if HugeOutfit1 is really on point today and you want to go where they're going? Click follow on their outfit leader, and boom. You have access to what they're doing. I see this is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

[Coreldan]

I personally expected it to be "session based", any and all followers naturally drop as soon as you log out.

[DayOne]

Maybe you can toggle permanent follows for outfit leaders.

[Hmr85]

Its sounds like a great idea. But lets be honest here. The zerg is gonna do what the zerg wants to do. Where ever there is the best fight count on them sitting there for the next week and not moving. You can be the best commander in the world but its not going to make a dam difference. We have seen it happen over and over. What its really going to come down to is who has the biggest outfit. Outfits will be leading this game not randoms.

With that said I do like the system Higby stated though.

[Coreldan]

Well, I dont think the follows have to always be non-permanent, just dont make offline players count, easy as that.

Then again, then the leaders have to start off from scratch in every session (Higby mentioned something about more followers -> cooler missions, though?), but a good leader will soon pick up followers when he gets online, just like now.

[Graywolves]

I like the idea of the top leader having "priority" or showing up first.


The bigger benefits thing though seems very highly exploitable though and will probably lead to having a handful of commanders who everyone is going to follow because they already have the most followers, compounding on the advantage.

[sylphaen]

Just to highlight this point again.

Planetside has TWO command structures:
- a public structure (command ranks)
- a private structure (outfits)

The glue bridging both together was possibility of joining random/outfit squads through the group menu,

____________________________

PS2 will keep the same model:
- a personalized public structure (twitter-style Command stalking)
- a private structure (outfits)

This time, the bridge from zerg to outfit seems to be the mission system along with random/outfit squads.

_________________________

One last point: the twitter style CR will be a kind of many zerg outfit structured from the top (i.e. leaders) where "outfit members" (i.e. the followers) play solo with a common objective (i.e. the mission).

It's a model based on decentralized leadership and solo gameplay. (caters to casuals (zerg, noob, 20-minute players))

Outfits will be the home for serious teamplayers.

Voila ! All kinds of players satisfied with their command structure ! (since it was personally chosen)

[Figment]

Once upon a time I wrote a command revision suggestion. Note, these are taken from a thread made in 2007 purely for PS1 and is not adapted to PS2 at all.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?&topic_id=88000012939

Of course at the time I did not consider that free accounts could be made to create sister outfits and rig votes. Hence why it probably does not work for PS2. However, it seems they may have taken some ideas out of it with the whole commander certification tree and outfit bonusses. >.>

They did say they scoured PSIdealabs once. :rofl:

You can skip it if you want. ;)

The system I'm proposing is basically a cross between Battlefield 2s voting system and C&C's Generals promotion system, integrated into the Planetside Command Rank system.



Basically, Cr 1 to Cr3 will remain the same as it is now. Cr4 and Cr5 however, will be expanded quite a bit. Cr4 and Cr5 will be divided in SIX star levels. 0 to 5 stars.

Once you reach Cr4 level, you will be awarded 1 star. See it as being a rookie Cr of that level. You will obtain the Reveal Enemies as you do now and access to Cr4 /c. You will also be awarded the option to upgrade ONE of your abilities or obtain a new one:


Upgrade Cr3 blast to Cr4 EMP blast
Upgrade Cr4 /c to Contall ability
Obtain Mini-OS
Squadleader Bonus (affects squad's/platoon's abilities) - only work when you lead squads.


You'll also receive an Outfit Leader bonus if you're OL of an outfit, enhancing your outfit's capabilities in a particular field. For example, 10% increased vehicle armour for units driven by your outfit members. Perhaps some of these could cost Outfit Points to use. Think of it as the upgrades you can give vehicles or troops in C&C games.

At Cr5 stars 1 to 4, the same thing happens, starting at 1 star, you retain the upgrades you had as a Cr4, but you can now also select basic CR5 upgrades:


Cr4 upgrades you didn't have yet
Upgrade Cr4 EMP to Cr5 EMP
Upgrade Mini-OS to Large-OS (Mini-OS is a prerequesit)
Upgrade /c to /contall and /comall ability (Cr4 contall is not a prerequesit)
More Squadleader Bonus options (some with prerequesits for specialisation) - only work when you lead squads


Five Star Cr5 upgrades:


Set Empire Homebase (works like platoon homebase, but only within the continent).
Order Empire Recall to Homebase (comes with Setting Homebase ability and only works for troops on a continent, not outside of it) - works as a squad recall
Order Empire Recall to Sanctuary (global ability) - works as a squad recall
If you're Outfit Leader, a second Outfit Leader Bonus would be awarded.



STARS
Since you have 1 star, you can only obtain one upgrade. To obtain more stars, you'll have to convince people from other outfits to rank you higher. You can probably best do this by leading conts well, supporting others and being good for morale, things that are positive for everyone around you. You'll find that if you abuse your abilities, people will 'demote' you by adding less or zero stars to your name, potentially revoking you the right to your upgrades if you had multiple stars, but most importantly, it will disallow you to send com messages. (Particularly spammers can be shut off this way). You will still retain access to /c.


Voting and Main Character concept

Voting is very simple. Next to the Outfit List, there will be a Commander List. Each and every commander of Cr4 and higher is listed here (and can be sorted by activity and outfit). Behind their names, their Star Rank and Cr4 or Cr5 rank is listed. You can then assign, much like you assign favourite songs in Windows Media Player, stars to each commander, or zero stars to vote to revoke their com powers.

To prevent abuse, only 5 people per outfit may vote on a single person, where the top 5 ratings will be used to determine the rating. No Outfitters may not vote, as they're not part of the ranking system. They may be voted for though and you won't lose your votes by leaving an outfit. Just your right to vote. Also, I would propose the introduction of a Main Character, where each account has a Main Character he or she can always log on to. Only the Main Character can vote. You can only have one Main Character per server, so you can only vote for one Empire. This would remove the potential of Outfit Rank Spam and Abuse seeing as to get a 5 star Cr5, you'll have to do well with at least 5 people from ten different outfits.

Note that the existence of a Main Character should increase empire loyalty. A Main Character may only be changed once every month, but any votes given on the old Main will be frozen and inactive. Your first created character is by default your Main Character.

Required amount of votes:

0 Stars - 50 0 Stars votes (spread over 10 outfits minimum)
1 Stars - 10 1+ Stars votes (spread over 2 outfits minimum
2 Stars - 20 2+ Stars votes (spread over 4 outfits minimum)
3 Stars - 30 3+ Stars votes (spread over 6 outfits minimum)
4 Stars - 40 4+ Stars votes (spread over 8 outfits minimum)
5 Stars - 50 5 Stars votes (spread over 8 outfits minimum)


Popularity and goal of this system

This basically means a large portion of this system would be popularity. Is this a bad thing? Not really, because the popularity reflects your popularity within other outfits and thus their trust in your capabilities to lead them as well. It's not an outfit popularity question.

This system as such is aimed at helping and rewarding those that actively aid the Empire. Particularly those that would take the effort to lead will be rewarded, as they would be more commonly known. Those people that are less known and quieter on /c, but do their bit for the empire, will most likely be known to the Cr5s and Cr4s, so they and their outfit would/should aid in giving them promotions, despite not making many if any comms. Next to that, it would obstruct global spam and global abuse by directly punishing those that abuse their Cr powers to grief or spam.

Eventually you'd get a clearer hierarchy within command systems.

Note that people who were ousted from global coms can undo that by doing their bit for the empire, without abusing their powers, resulting in people regiving them stars instead of their old zero star vote. But you'll have to do well to compensate, because a lot of people are not easy on forgiving you.


Cr4 to Cr5 progress and selecting upgrades

You can only receive the max number of upgrades, once you've been a Star 5 Cr4. This should encourage you to do your best on Cr4 in service of the empire because it's largely in your own interest. This will also wead out the lesser and less interested commanders from having the same amount of powers as the best leaders your empire has to offer. Apart from contall/comall, you can not lose your Cr4 upgrades once you've been promoted as a five star Cr4 to Cr5. Even at star 0, you will retain one upgrade per rank above Cr3 (the free upgrade that came with your increased rank), but you may not global or contall. So if you're a 0 Star Cr5, you can still have your large OS, but no other upgrades.

You should be able to switch upgrades like you do certs, because not everyone will always want to lead, or realise later on they want to specialise differently. As a Cr5, you have the amount of abilities you can get through your Cr5 stars, on top of the amount of abilities you gained when you were Cr4.

Note that this will mean that only the good and respected Cr4s could get the full amount of upgrades, which will show in Cr5. CEP [Removed for Content] probably won't have time to reach 5 star Cr4, making "Nub Cr5s" less
powerfull.


Specialisation

Some Cr4s and higher will want to specialise as Squadleaders, Global Leaders or not be interested in that and just want their OS. All of this is possible. You can specialise in Squadleader upgrades (Squad Bonusses), Empire upgrades (Command Upgrades), or personal upgrades (EMP/OS Upgrades). But you can do more so if you invest a lot in your empire and comrades, because they can and will reward you for your efforts.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/CR_Revision.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/CR_Revision.jpg

The chart to my 'Command System Revision' idea. Note that at two star Cr4/Cr5 you could choose to be as powerfull as you would currently be, minus the comall (or minus one EMP or OS upgrade). You could however also specialise in diverse types of platoon or squadleading, or Empire command.

The only killwhore related items are the two small and big OS types, the rest has influences on your squad or platoon, or empire.



You could make these Squad and Platoon Leader upgrades things like:


+10% Armour for infantry in squad (per bonus)
+10% Stamina for infantry in squad (per bonus)
+10% Ground Vehicle Armor for ground vehicles in squad (per bonus)
+10% Air Vehicle Armor for air units in squad (per bonus)
+10% Damage Output for infantry (and/or) vehicles in squad (per bonus)
+10% Capacitator Usage for squad (per bonus) - Increases duration of Afterburners, MAXes, BFRs, etc. by 10%
+10% Support Speed for engis/medics in squad



+5% Armour for infantry in platoon (per bonus)
+5% Stamina for for infantry in platoon (per bonus)
+5% Ground Vehicle Armor for ground vehicles in platoon (per bonus)
+5% Air Vehicle Armor for air units in platoon (per bonus)
+5% Damage Output for infantry (and/or) vehicles in platoon (per bonus)
+5% Capacitator Usage for squad (per bonus) - Increases duration of Afterburners, MAXes, BFRs, etc by 5%.
+5% Support Speed for engis/medics in platoon


These would only go into effect within a Base SOI of the Squad or Platoonleader. If the leader is removed from the area or you go out of range, you lose the benefit upon next death/spawn, much like the removal of a health module affects your health.

Likewise Cr4/Cr5 OL's could select these or other type of upgrades to go for their entire Outfit (max of two upgrades per outfit). For example you could add specialisations like:


Infantry
Ground Vehicles
Air Vehicles
Support
Other
That could be something like the squad incentives but permanent for said Outfit, mainly increasing the ability of outfit members in particular fields, encouraging outfit specialisation.


Obviously these would only go into effect when you're squad or platoon leader. Promoting Crs to lead their platoon, despite having all their CR power. Making outfits chose between handing out free CEP to non-leaders, or having the true leaders lead so they gain combat advantages. This would also provide extra incentives to join squads and outfits, promoting teamwork as well.

[sylphaen]

PS2 will be a very different game than PS1 though... And command mechanics even more so, based on what Higby said.

Edit: and just so you know where I stand, I am against having strong priviledges given to command ranks (if there is even a rank structure in PS2). The reward of command should be... commanding. Not combat rewards.

[EVILPIG]

I'm not seeing what the problem is to those who do not like it? Gaining Command XP will only allow you to unlock command tools. Those tools will only affect those who are following you.

Global Chat is dead. The devs saw the spam and nixed the shiit out of it. Commanders will not get "command weaponry", such as the Orbital Strike. It's all command tools. You will only see the chat of those you follow.

[Whalenator]

I'm not seeing what the problem is to those who do not like it? Gaining Command XP will only allow you to unlock command tools. Those tools will only affect those who are following you.

Global Chat is dead. The devs saw the spam and nixed the shiit out of it. Commanders will not get "command weaponry", such as the Orbital Strike. It's all command tools. You will only see the chat of those you follow.

Actually, I think Higby's intent was for missions to provide as both an intra-outfit and an inter-outfit coordination medium. Even if you weren't in any outfit at all, or in a very small one, leaders with oodles of followers would make missions available to you.

[NewSith]

I'm all for this system. I mean the game is not conscript military and you're not obliged to follow anyone/thing. Especially considering your outfit can give you missions of its own choice. The whole "popularity contest" fear is pointless. Even if the guy gets elected every time he'll have to make right choiuces and be communicative. Otherwise everyone's just gonna ignore him and he'll end up in the gutter. Afterall many mmorpgs do such a thing and it works. The "leaders" ARE most of the time respected by the population and act deserving the respect.

[Fortress]

It didn't take long to figure out who knew their shit in PS1. I don't that is going to change in PS2, regardless of whatever system they decide upon.

[Whalenator]

The whole "popularity contest" fear is pointless. Even if the guy gets elected every time he'll have to make right choiuces and be communicative. Otherwise everyone's just gonna ignore him and he'll end up in the gutter.

So you're assuming if you put someone in power he or she won't abuse it?
It will just force them to become a better person? :ugh:

EDIT: @Fortress this game is MUCH more widely advertised.

[sylphaen]

What kind of power would they abuse anyway ? Setting up stupid missions ?

Unfollow that loser asap before it gets worse.

Opposite to PS1, their power will only come from the power you are willing to give them and not their capacity to farm CEP.

And if you can follow more leaders, you can choose between more missions.

The new twitter command has a structuring effect but if you compare it to an outfit structure, it's inverted. An outfit is made bottom-up (members join to create a group), the twitter command is made top-down (many commanders create a set of efforts you can participate to).


I think this new system covers almost all of the concerns we had with PS1 CR structure.

[Fortress]

So you're assuming if you put someone in power he or she won't abuse it?
It will just force them to become a better person? :ugh:

EDIT: @Fortress this game is MUCH more widely advertised.

So? I'll be following the guys I followed in PS1. I don't care how many dipshit commanders there are -- the good ones will rise to the top just like they did before and I don't know why any serious player would decide to follow somone based purely on some odd popularity metric.

[Skitrel]

There's a simple solution to all this twitter popularity business.

Have a command stats board, with all the people that make missions, list their missions, list their successes and failures as commanders.

Repeatedly successful commanders will gather more and more followers the more they succeed and prove their ability. Commanders that fail will lose supporters the those that are showing successes. This can almost be a Commander Leaderboard of sorts.

Through this you remove the popularity contest and turn it into a results contest. Those who get results will stay at the top, those that do not will lose support, nobody wants to fail all the time. People want to win.

Easy.

[sylphaen]

There will be outfits and twitter commanders.

For casual players:
- if you know some good leaders, follow them.
- if you like participating with some outfits, also follow the leader from that outfit (you do not need to join them to participate !).

For outfit players:
- If you only want to play with your outfit, so be it, just join the outfit.
- If you want extra options, twit follow other leaders to interact.


This is an open system where no one is locked and forced to suffer terrible commanders. There is overlap to help integrate outfits too.

To me, it looks like a good system... and also pretty active:

Log in > Pick up a mission > Go for it !

[Knightwyvern]

So you're assuming if you put someone in power he or she won't abuse it?
It will just force them to become a better person? :ugh:

No, he's saying if you follow them and they turn out to be shit, you won't follow them anymore. It self-regulates based on merit, purely because people like winning/doing well.

[Whalenator]

I don't know why I need to say this over and over again.
As mentioned in the video the only thing a "follow" will merit is granting the individual followed more power. It may influence their missions to be available to you more often but don't let the word "follow" deceive you. It's purely a reference to twitter.

[Knightwyvern]

I don't know why I need to say this over and over again.
As mentioned in the video the only thing a "follow" will merit is granting the individual followed more power. It may influence their missions to be available to you more often but don't let the word "follow" deceive you. It's purely a reference to twitter.

Because we already know what you're saying, and it doesn't matter. If a commander "abuses" their power, not only will the most likely lose a lot of that power because of losing their "followers," but you aren't forced to do their missions if you don't want to.

No one expects people to suddenly get better at command because they have more people following them. No one expects a person to be less of an asshole for the same reason. But when you suck at it you won't last. People will just stop doing your missions.

[RavenUSC3]

Again I didn't read through this thread so my apologies if anyone has already said this, but what about a simple rep point system or +1 or -1. If a commander has done a good job or has a great idea, you can give him a rep point. Maybe you can only give a certain commander either a positive or negative once in a 24 hour period so you don't get spammed, but I believe this system would prevent a lot of the foolishness from the command channel for fear of revolt. In fact, commanders at a certain rep level should probably have their communication privileges limited or taken away.

Sure there'd be flaws and this guy would accidentally TK someone and he goes and tells his entire outfit to give him a negative rep point, but I believe it would ultimately work itself out. I mean if we're talking one a day per person, someone could be up in the tens of thousand rep points if they're doing a good job.

Either way, I do believe there should be some kind of commander window everyone can pull up that lists all active commanders. Here you can subscribe to a commander, mute one, add/subtract rep point, etc... You could potentially sort it by rep points or Commander rank....who knows. These rep points should also be private and never alerted to the commander too, just in case you join a zerg outfit and come to your senses and realize your outfit leader is a moron, he won't neccessarily know you didn't give him a rep point....you can continue to zerg it up and he'll never know the difference...you won't be bullied into giving him a rep point basically. (Hopefully at that point you'd find a real outfit)

[Whalenator]

Again I didn't read through this thread so my apologies if anyone has already said this, but what about a simple rep point system or +1 or -1. If a commander has done a good job or has a great idea, you can give him a rep point. Maybe you can only give a certain commander either a positive or negative once in a 24 hour period so you don't get spammed, but I believe this system would prevent a lot of the foolishness from the command channel for fear of revolt. In fact, commanders at a certain rep level should probably have their communication privileges limited or taken away.

Sure there'd be flaws and this guy would accidentally TK someone and he goes and tells his entire outfit to give him a negative rep point, but I believe it would ultimately work itself out. I mean if we're talking one a day per person, someone could be up in the tens of thousand rep points if they're doing a good job.

Either way, I do believe there should be some kind of commander window everyone can pull up that lists all active commanders. Here you can subscribe to a commander, mute one, add/subtract rep point, etc... You could potentially sort it by rep points or Commander rank....who knows. These rep points should also be private and never alerted to the commander too, just in case you join a zerg outfit and come to your senses and realize your outfit leader is a moron, he won't neccessarily know you didn't give him a rep point....you can continue to zerg it up and he'll never know the difference...you won't be bullied into giving him a rep point basically. (Hopefully at that point you'd find a real outfit)

Not sure about that.
It's a good idea balance-wise, but the ability to downvote a commander could lead to alot of problems.

[RavenUSC3]

Maybe its not, maybe it could be. With the right tweaking I think it could work. Maybe you only get ten votes a day as an individual, meaning you probably just won't waste it. I just don't see how you could do positive voting without negative though or else everyone would just continue to gain votes and max out like the current CR5 system with no fear of repercussions. I think it really would weed out those that don't need to be commanding, or are just using the command channels for fun or annoyances. It wouldn't stop them from commanding to be voted down, but would limit their communication abilities. If they clean up their act, within their small group that they command they can continue to get positive votes and work their way into gaining more communication capabilities, and therefore potential command of more troops, who can still disregard your orders without taking a rep point from you. If a guy is asking for help on Indar and your outfit is going to Amerish, you go to Amerish and that's that. If a guy keeps spamming for a raid he's doing with all caps and nonsense then you dock him, maybe mute him, and continue on your way.

[Traak]

Sure some guy may have more people following him because of borrowed popularity, but if you consistently do a better job word should eventually spread. You might not be able to fully overcome the inertia of a big name in a guild alliance, but that shouldnt bother you. If people are happy eating crap then they should be free to eat crap. ;)

All in, I think it's a fascinating idea!

As a side note, history and literature is scattered with references of a weak/crazy leader or king being preferable to revolution because there is strength in the unity of following them...

And that sums up most of the outfit leaders I found in PS1.

"Do what I say, even if it is EXTREMELY STUPID, INEFFECTIVE, AND BORDERING ON BEING AN ABJECT TRAITOR to THE BATTLE/WAR/EMPIRE, or I will kick you out of the outfit before others choose to follow you instead of me as a result."

But, really, it isn't like we have a huge crop of Fortune 500 executives as customers of Sony, to put it mildly.

[ringring]

I can't imagine me following anyone who isn't either in my outfit or in an outfit we are allied with.

One thing from PS1 - it's often said that the reason for getting cr5 was the OS, the big gun in the sky. However, I found by far the most useful thing was cr5 chat and the insight and intel that you got. As cr5 I was instantly a better platoon leader because of the addition information at my fingertips.

Yea, there was lots of crap and stupid arguments on command chat. But that didn't negate the benefits.

So, the point I'm coming to is, for me the DEVS should buff inter-outfit alliance tools.

[Wings]

I can't imagine me following anyone who isn't either in my outfit or in an outfit we are allied with.

One thing from PS1 - it's often said that the reason for getting cr5 was the OS, the big gun in the sky. However, I found by far the most useful thing was cr5 chat and the insight and intel that you got. As cr5 I was instantly a better platoon leader because of the addition information at my fingertips.

Yea, there was lots of crap and stupid arguments on command chat. But that didn't negate the benefits.

So, the point I'm coming to is, for me the DEVS should buff inter-outfit alliance tools.

I totally agree.

This will certainly reduce the Commanders on the game spamming chat and just wanting the OS but it will SUCK!

I was CR5 well before my BR was maxed back when it was 25. That was the part of the game I enjoyed, being a squad leader coordinating attacks with other squad leaders and flying high doing the drops. As said above the intel side of things was great, asking for a squad to check a bases situation or hearing that there was gal drops on there way ect

[sylphaen]

That problem is already solved with a twitter-like system: follow those outfit leaders in your commander favs list and it will be your "filtered" CR5 info channel.