The Reality of Leading an Empire Into War

[p0intman]

The problem in PS1's leadership structure is that even though you could grind up to being a CR5, being a CR5 didn't mean someone was an actual leader and was worth listening to. The number of CR5s worth actually paying mind to, was actually quite small compared to the number of CR5s that spoke on command chat or on comall/comcont.

A common misconception was that all CR5s were bad and were worth ignoring. This is not the case, as many of us actually tried to do what we could for the better of our chosen empire. The problem arises that there exists a group think mentality in any large group of people who are asked to do something that they don't appreciate or care to do, such as re-securing or assaulting a base.

There exists a problem with the notion that players should not have a leadership position over other players in an FPS game as large as planetside, that is really that lemmings will follow lemmings unless given direction.

The development team of PS2 seems intent on eradicating any formal leadership structure for each empire. In spite of this, or even despite of it, I have decided to take initiative to fill this problem with a player made solution. I would like to the developers who read this to keep in mind, that if the player base wants something... it will exist, even if you don't formally support it.

Some, or even a few of you have already seen what I have been working on. A number of you have copies, or access to copies of the idea. For the rest, here is what I envision.

An alliance of outfits is already forming, and I am going to be approaching a few more in the near future. The goal of this alliance is to share information and chat channels ingame to coordinate movements on a massive scale that hasn't been witnessed in years. No one outfit is to lead this alliance, but the tactical decisions of the combined opinion of each outfit's squad leaders and tactical thinkers promises to fill in any gaps in empire leadership that the developers may leave vacant regardless of if it was intentionally or not.

The end goal of establishing this solution is to nullify the effect of the so-called "problem leaders" that do things contrary to the goal of having fun for the rest of the empire. There is no reason that a formal leadership structure cannot work and cannot be done correctly.

The coordination and command level discussions will take place on a secure channel either in-game or out of game. That decision resides with how dynamic and reliable the in-game chat system is. If it turns out to be that we need to use something out of game, it is not beyond the realm of possibility of using shared TS/mumble/vent information to coordinate base assaults, just like is sometimes done in PS1.

It is my hope that the developers will embrace this idea and eventually implement a method for players to functionally lead their empire as was tried in PS1. Comall/Comcont is not something to be feared or even loathed. Instead, how it is used by those who lack a desire to do anything constructive is the only real problem with it. In the end, with a lack of a solid in-game foundation, players will always pick up the slack.

And no, your "mission system" is not adequate.

[Xyntech]

I actually think the devs removing the arbitrary CR5 is a good thing in support of your cause. I believe that these kinds of leadership roles should be much more of a meta game, not something dictated by the developers or game mechanics.

Removing the confusion of CR5's will let the true leaders shine clearer I think. It already worked pretty well in PS1, even with limited teamwork and outfit support and the confusion caused by bad CR5's.

I think if the devs are smart, they will add systems that help meta game alliances like this, but never try to directly create the system artificially themselves. Game mechanics should only artificially try to help the small scale, such as forming squads. The rest is up to us, and would be better with less direct intervention by the devs.

I wholly support this idea, if not the sentiment towards the developers that it comes along with.

As the game progresses, hopefully they will be able to add more tools that support what the alliances are already doing, not trying to do what the devs think should be done. Hopefully a lot of these tools will be able to be added before the end of beta.

[The Janitor]

Maybe add the ability to have outfits spend resources to put up missions for the zerg to be able to accept so you can direct them where you want? The more resources spent, the higher the reward for those who accept it so the zerg will want to accept these missions and accept those more often that offer higher rewards, making the masses be directed by the outfits who get things done more often. They might even start to like certain outfits who post large "bounties" for certain missions and follow their direction of their own accord. There's no need to micro manage the zerg, all we need is a way to effectively unleash it in the general direction we'd like stuff to get done in.

[meiam]

The largest problem with player build solution is that the other side doesn't have access to them, so if one empire has a very good leadership structure and the other 2 don't, then that one empire will dominate. Now the real problem with that is it's going to be incredibly boring for that one empire has they'll quickly dominate the server.

Now the largest problem with a formal in game chat to allow for strategic discussion is too balance not letting people who have no idea what there saying with new people that wanna make there mark and be allowed into the leadership structure. For the life of me, I can't think of any solution to that problem, both in game or player run.

[musefrog]

Maybe add the ability to have outfits spend resources to put up missions for the zerg to be able to accept so you can direct them where you want? The more resources spent, the higher the reward for those who accept it so the zerg will want to accept these missions and accept those more often, making the masses be directed by the outfits who get things done more often. They might even start to like certain outfits who post large "bounties" for certain missions and follow their direction of their own accord. There's no need to micro manage the zerg, all we need is a way to effectively unleash it in the general direction we'd like stuff to get done in.
Brilliant idea!

[ringring]

I support this idea.

I think we need something similar on TR on the new werner server or whatever it or they are called.

I do worry at the thought that there may be an opinion that leadership is the ability to slap down a mission or two, it is obviously more than that.

There is also the probably issue of a conflict in the command level of an empire where conflicting missions are creating. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

[Haro]

The problem in PS1's leadership structure is that even though you could grind up to being a CR5, being a CR5 didn't mean someone was an actual leader and was worth listening to. The number of CR5s worth actually paying mind to, was actually quite small compared to the number of CR5s that spoke on command chat or on comall/comcont.

A common misconception was that all CR5s were bad and were worth ignoring. This is not the case, as many of us actually tried to do what we could for the better of our chosen empire. The problem arises that there exists a group think mentality in any large group of people who are asked to do something that they don't appreciate or care to do, such as re-securing or assaulting a base.

There exists a problem with the notion that players should not have a leadership position over other players in an FPS game as large as planetside, that is really that lemmings will follow lemmings unless given direction.

The development team of PS2 seems intent on eradicating any formal leadership structure for each empire. In spite of this, or even despite of it, I have decided to take initiative to fill this problem with a player made solution. I would like to the developers who read this to keep in mind, that if the player base wants something... it will exist, even if you don't formally support it.

Some, or even a few of you have already seen what I have been working on. A number of you have copies, or access to copies of the idea. For the rest, here is what I envision.

An alliance of outfits is already forming, and I am going to be approaching a few more in the near future. The goal of this alliance is to share information and chat channels ingame to coordinate movements on a massive scale that hasn't been witnessed in years. No one outfit is to lead this alliance, but the tactical decisions of the combined opinion of each outfit's squad leaders and tactical thinkers promises to fill in any gaps in empire leadership that the developers may leave vacant regardless of if it was intentionally or not.

The end goal of establishing this solution is to nullify the effect of the so-called "problem leaders" that do things contrary to the goal of having fun for the rest of the empire. There is no reason that a formal leadership structure cannot work and cannot be done correctly.

The coordination and command level discussions will take place on a secure channel either in-game or out of game. That decision resides with how dynamic and reliable the in-game chat system is. If it turns out to be that we need to use something out of game, it is not beyond the realm of possibility of using shared TS/mumble/vent information to coordinate base assaults, just like is sometimes done in PS1.

It is my hope that the developers will embrace this idea and eventually implement a method for players to functionally lead their empire as was tried in PS1. Comall/Comcont is not something to be feared or even loathed. Instead, how it is used by those who lack a desire to do anything constructive is the only real problem with it. In the end, with a lack of a solid in-game foundation, players will always pick up the slack.

And no, your "mission system" is not adequate.

A lot of good points here, and it's a really worthwhile subject.

I would put forth the argument that although CR5's did have tools for command, I always felt the real structure of empires came from outfits and outfit leaders (who often were Cr5 anyway.) I think the outfit system will only become more central in Planetside, as we already have several strong outfits that have lasted for much of the game's incarnation. I would like to see some controls and tools given to outfit leaders. They actually have a structure they can use, whereas Cr5s outside of guilds are often trying to tell people to do something, but people rarely have any reason to listen to them.

I'd also like to see some command tools put into cert trees for squad leaders or commanders. I wouldn't put anything especially powerful (like some of the CR5 chat levels, or any kind of bolt from the blue) but things like squad level waypoints, drawing, etc. would be nice without having to go through the long cr grind. Of course, these certs would only produce a usable effect if you are a squad leader, so random people can't just use them.

Finally, I could see community managers from SOE having the potential for this, maybe as command moderators. I think one of the worst things of Planetside was that a lot of things were left out of control and improperly moderated. If we do have any larger command structure outside of guilds and squads, it needs to be closely monitored and managed. Not everyone should be a commander, and it's abilities are a privilege, not a right.

Like I said before, though, I think the guild command structure should take a lot from the CR5s and stand as the primary empire structure.

[p0intman]

The largest problem with player build solution is that the other side doesn't have access to them, so if one empire has a very good leadership structure and the other 2 don't, then that one empire will dominate. Now the real problem with that is it's going to be incredibly boring for that one empire has they'll quickly dominate the server.

Now the largest problem with a formal in game chat to allow for strategic discussion is too balance not letting people who have no idea what there saying with new people that wanna make there mark and be allowed into the leadership structure. For the life of me, I can't think of any solution to that problem, both in game or player run.
If it works and ends up leaving its infancy stage where I actually go out and recruit other outfits to cooperate with us, I actually have friends on other empires to disseminate my document to. To say I and a few others have access to it does not mean it may not eventually be something I just freely give away. Its an idea, and each Empire will probably end up developing something similar on its own if there is no in-game structure available.

I support this idea.

I think we need something similar on TR on the new werner server or whatever it or they are called.

I do worry at the thought that there may be an opinion that leadership is the ability to slap down a mission or two, it is obviously more than that.

There is also the probably issue of a conflict in the command level of an empire where conflicting missions are creating. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

Long term cooperation and sharing of opinion on appropriate methods of tactical advancement breeds trust and the ability for many people to cooperate on a single objective even if not in the same TS channel. It is not something that happens overnight but it is instead something that is created over a long span of time, weeks and months at a time.

[Xyntech]

I'd like to see how customizable the current VOIP system is. We already know we can use it while outside the game, which was a big sticking point with a lot of outfits.

If we can customize it to allow private leadership channels, it will go a long way towards giving the exact kind of support that outfits like this need.

I'm not sure whether or not an official alliance system should be in game though. I feel like that would come with a lot of problems, and that the devs would be better left out of it.

I think more of the tools should be broadly useful tools that just so conveniently happen to work perfectly to facilitate outfits and players who want to be part of a bigger alliance type of operation.

Tools that can be used on smaller or larger scale. Stat and battle plan sharing that can be set to share with individual players, squads or platoons, or entire outfits, both your own and other outfits/squads/platoons.

[Mastachief]

You ... just .... don't.... follow the.... BAD ...... Commanders


Simples!

[p0intman]

You ... just .... don't.... follow the.... BAD ...... Commanders


Simples!
Sometimes people are lemmings.. kind of like this:
lemmings jumping off cliffs - YouTube

Bad commanders aren't easily differentiated from good commanders by new players.

[ringring]

A lot of good points here, and it's a really worthwhile subject.

I would put forth the argument that although CR5's did have tools for command, I always felt the real structure of empires came from outfits and outfit leaders (who often were Cr5 anyway.)

Absolutely, the pre-existing outfit leaders already have the links with other outfit leaders, all that needs to be done is to semi-formalise those links into an alliance of sorts.

But if alliances form I think they will be semi-formal and by that I mean on some days the alliance will be outfit A and outfit B+C but on other days it will be a different set of outfits. Hopefully the VIOP will facilitate this.

[Xyntech]

Absolutely, the pre-existing outfit leaders already have the links with other outfit leaders, all that needs to be done is to semi-formalise those links into an alliance of sorts.

But if alliances form I think they will be semi-formal and by that I mean on some days the alliance will be outfit A and outfit B+C but on other days it will be a different set of outfits. Hopefully the VIOP will facilitate this.

This is why I want it to be informal tools that help the true leaders do this themselves, not a rigid system designed by the developers.

Also, if it's formalized too much, then players will probably be given a ton of fake/bad leaders to choose between in addition to the good ones, and we're right back to the lame CR5 situation.

[Soothsayer]

I thought the story was that an unscrupulous nature documentary film maker was actually rounding up lemmings and chasing them off a cliff then filming it.

It is Disney after all..

I'd like to think that most of the time I'm going to be acting in line with the general best interests of my empire and that if I'm trying to play with a mind to strategy that I'm on the ball.

Command rank five really gave a lot of people the sense that they were justified in taking command whether or not they had the mandate of the people they were giving orders to.

That problem is circumvented by the introduction of the "follow" system that was referred to a couple months back.

Foot soldiers have the option of putting a follow on a couple of different individuals. They could have a follow (twitter style) on their SL, their OL and an empire commander of their choice. As a person gains more and more followers, the greater amount of reach and clout they have with making things happen on the mission system.

So yes, I'd say the mission system is adequate unless the empire commander also wants to give RL personalized marital advice or hot tips on what stocks his/her followers should be buying.

[EDIT: here's my lemmings source if you accept Snopes as an authority http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp]

[Vetto]

I do hope the community some what has control over who in lead and who not cause of what you said.

[ringring]

I'd like to see how customizable the current VOIP system is. We already know we can use it while outside the game, which was a big sticking point with a lot of outfits.

If we can customize it to allow private leadership channels, it will go a long way towards giving the exact kind of support that outfits like this need.

I'm not sure whether or not an official alliance system should be in game though. I feel like that would come with a lot of problems, and that the devs would be better left out of it.

I think more of the tools should be broadly useful tools that just so conveniently happen to work perfectly to facilitate outfits and players who want to be part of a bigger alliance type of operation.

Tools that can be used on smaller or larger scale. Stat and battle plan sharing that can be set to share with individual players, squads or platoons, or entire outfits, both your own and other outfits/squads/platoons.

Yes, it should not be in game.... the devs should simply leave it to us.

[Baneblade]

I don't think such an alliance is truly necessary. War Machine is willing to consider such things of course... down the road, but I don't think the proliferation of bad leaders will make it into PS2.

[Xyntech]

Yes, it should not be in game.... the devs should simply leave it to us.

The devs have been very good about listening to the community. Also, Forgelight seems robust enough to make a lot of things possible. So I'd hope that, as alliances form outside the game, the players and leaders could petition the devs for x or y feature, which would help them form alliances and run operations themselves, without any direct developer intervention.

All the more reason to be somewhat political when talking about the game or dealing with the developers, although I'm biased in that regard, since I'm genuinely happy with 95% of what I've seen the developers do.

At a bare minimum, I feel like they've extended enough of an olive branch to the fans that they deserve one extended back. They need us to be a success and we need them to have a Planetside 2. Better to be friends and come to mutually beneficial solutions rather than be enemies and get ignored, because while it's up to the players of the game succeeds or fails, there is no reason why the developers should listen to anyone who just seems openly hostile.

Although, all things considered, Higby and crew have actually maintained dialogue even with some of the more fervent detractors. Admittedly some of the lines of dialogue have been intermittent, but they've been pretty damn busy lately, so I think that's understandable.

[p0intman]

Ideal chat functions include the ability to create personal text channels that are password protected and the original creator, as an owner, can ban/allow people into the channel with the option for VoIP function. I'd also like to see functionality added to support ventrilo and TS3 interfacing in some way. That way, even if you don't see it, there are people making tactical decisions about the empire and disseminating them through other means (TS, outfit chat, etc).

[JPalmer]

Sometimes people are lemmings.. kind of like this:

Bad commanders aren't easily differentiated from good commanders by new players.

Higby or someone on the team mentioned awhile ago in a video that people who create missions can get followers like on twitter. If the missions make sense and are completed people can "follow" that person and the more popular they are the higher their missions will be placed for everyone else.

You can get all your Outfit players across the server to like the leaders you want to create missions so they will always be at the top of the mission system.

No need for your whole alliance idea.

[Xyntech]

Ideal chat functions include the ability to create personal text channels that are password protected and the original creator, as an owner, can ban/allow people into the channel with the option for VoIP function. I'd also like to see functionality added to support ventrilo and TS3 interfacing in some way. That way, even if you don't see it, there are people making tactical decisions about the empire and disseminating them through other means (TS, outfit chat, etc).

Yes yes yes. Private (and persistent) VOIP and text chat channels.

Also, I very much want to see either first party support of connecting to external voice chat programs like you mention, or at the very least I'd like the system to be robust enough that players could use API's to bridge the two systems with their own player created apps.

I think this shit will go a lot further to promote team work and order than any rigid game mechanics could.

I still like the idea of the mission system and I think it has the potential to be a useful tool, but it will certainly have it's own limitations, so I definitely don't want to see it made out to be the end all be all of leadership tools.

[p0intman]

Higby or someone on the team mentioned awhile ago in a video that people who create missions can get followers like on twitter. If the missions make sense and are completed people can "follow" that person and the more popular they are the higher their missions will be placed for everyone else.

You can get all your Outfit players across the server to like the leaders you want to create missions so they will always be at the top of the mission system.

No need for your whole alliance idea.
Your notion is flawed, its almost the same kind of popularity contest that is C-chat these days. Idiots will mass follow other ideas and it'll be pointless and even harder for anyone new to get started.
I do hope the community some what has control over who in lead and who not cause of what you said.

If what I've written causes you to want to take an active role in leading your empire, great.

Yes yes yes. Private (and persistent) VOIP and text chat channels.

Also, I very much want to see either first party support of connecting to external voice chat programs like you mention, or at the very least I'd like the system to be robust enough that players could use API's to bridge the two systems with their own player created apps.

I think this shit will go a lot further to promote team work and order than any rigid game mechanics could.

I still like the idea of the mission system and I think it has the potential to be a useful tool, but it will certainly have it's own limitations, so I definitely don't want to see it made out to be the end all be all of leadership tools.

Done correctly, an API can be more useful than a TS3 password. Many corps and alliances use APIs like that in EVE, to make sure you are who you claim to be.

[p0intman]

Bamelin ruined everything.

for those who don't know...

Bamelin
Noun: A CR5 who, though no longer maintaining a permanent account, continues to show up from time to time in PlanetSide to cause disruptions. Bamelin is most renown for his tendancy to counter global any decisions made by other CR5's.

Verb: To counter-global. Example: "We were going to defend Amerish then somebody Bamelined to go to Cyssor"

[JPalmer]

Your notion is flawed, its almost the same kind of popularity contest that is C-chat these days. Idiots will mass follow other ideas and it'll be pointless and even harder for anyone new to get started.




How though? Would not your Outfits you been communicating with have the majority of pop.?

They could dislike everyone else you do not want and like everyone you do want as a leader.

Simple and effective. Every player has to have a choice in it. Elitism shouldn't stop new players from growing in skill. Auraxis leadership shouldn't be a dictatorship. Your idea stops new growth at the start, this at least gives new players a chance.

[CuddlyChud]

In PS, the right or wrong decision is often times subjective. There might be a tactically sound strategy to ghost hacking a cont, but there might also be a really fun fight at an inter-farm. Neither are necessarily the "right" or "wrong" choice. Ultimately its up to the individual to decide where his priorities lie. I would rather be able to choose who I want to follow rather than have it chosen for me by some Alliance that thinks they can speak for the entire playerbase. I'm really intrigued by the Dev's Twitter-like mission system, and would definitely want to see how that works out before endorsing something like your idea.

[p0intman]

How though? Would not your Outfits you been communicating with have the majority of pop.?

They could dislike everyone else you do not want and like everyone you do want as a leader.

Simple and effective. Every player has to have a choice in it. Elitism shouldn't stop new players from growing in skill. Auraxis leadership shouldn't be a dictatorship. Your idea stops new growth at the start, this at least gives new players a chance.

In PS, the right or wrong decision is often times subjective. There might be a tactically sound strategy to ghost hacking a cont, but there might also be a really fun fight at an inter-farm. Neither are necessarily the "right" or "wrong" choice. Ultimately its up to the individual to decide where his priorities lie. I would rather be able to choose who I want to follow rather than have it chosen for me by some Alliance that thinks they can speak for the entire playerbase. I'm really intrigued by the Dev's Twitter-like mission system, and would definitely want to see how that works out before endorsing something like your idea.

That's simply not the goal of the alliance, though. We're not out to have the majority of the population. We're not out to make it so new people can't learn to lead effectively. You're suggesting that we're going to put all of the outfits involved under one CoC. That's simply not true. Its the idea of promoting joint operations while making sure that mistakes with attempts at this in the past that have failed aren't repeated. That is why my idea focuses on information sharing and making coordination as simple as is possible.

[Landtank]

How though? Would not your Outfits you been communicating with have the majority of pop.?

They could dislike everyone else you do not want and like everyone you do want as a leader.

Simple and effective. Every player has to have a choice in it. Elitism shouldn't stop new players from growing in skill. Auraxis leadership shouldn't be a dictatorship. Your idea stops new growth at the start, this at least gives new players a chance.

Agreed. I do not see the need to even start creating a super outfit alliance of justice. I think the system in place will work best, and yeah of course its a popularity contest, you give good missions=more popular with the troops=more followers. Its simple and graceful, exactly how it should be. I don't want someone commanding me just because they are the leader of an outfit from PlanetSide 1, no offense. This is a whole new ballgame.

[SgtMAD]

isn't this a little premature seeing how you don't have a clue about how the servers are going to be set up?

there so many variables at this point in time,makes it hard to get an idea of who is going to play on which server.

I never really had any use for alliances,it was always "my way or get the fuck out",
Cogburn(DD) was the same way so we had a lot of luck with getting multiple outfits all on one TS during the Mono events,we would run a poplock in three channels and never worried about which outfit was doing what.

I don't think the NC ever lost one of those events on Markov.

if you get results,the zerg will follow you.

[p0intman]

isn't this a little premature seeing how you don't have a clue about how the servers are going to be set up?

there so many variables at this point in time,makes it hard to get an idea of who is going to play on which server.

I never really had any use for alliances,it was always "my way or get the fuck out",
Cogburn(DD) was the same way so we had a lot of luck with getting multiple outfits all on one TS during the Mono events,we would run a poplock in three channels and never worried about which outfit was doing what.

I don't think the NC ever lost one of those events on Markov.

if you get results,the zerg will follow you.

Where is Cogburn anyway? He never did do much with Versus. And as for the rest, yeah, it probably is a little bit premature but tbh, they've said so little on how they expect leadership to work I decided to ressurect an old idea from emerald called the NCA and fix many of its problems that led to infighting. What you see is part of the result. The intent is to keep each outfit as its own CoC while promoting joint operations without the hassle of getting a few hundred people all on the same TS server without hilarity ensuing.

[The Kush]

Good luck is all I can say. You don't even know what server you or anyone else will be on yet your trying to organize outfits?

[wraithverge]

doo de doo, *logs in* The TR will TRIUMPH this day! *checks missions* hrmm, misson from higby, we need non anti air maxes all clustered around this area... highest priority... looks legit to me.

*higby in a lib "MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"*

as long as missions say who posted them, I'm cool with it.

[Xyntech]

Good luck is all I can say. You don't even know what server you or anyone else will be on yet your trying to organize outfits?

Not a problem if players can freely move their characters around :p

I know I know, a lot of people hate that and think it will destroy community :D Probably true, I wouldn't know.

[Timey]

I won't be there, but 10 heads with ambition AND skill to lead hitting their heads togehter on the same channel (kicking the idiots away with please not a democratic vote) and then "controlling" the zerg would be nice.

[Virulence]

From what they've said about it, the purpose of the mission system seems to be twofold.

1) Provide a way to automatically generate objectives and incentives to help distribute the population across a continent.

2) Provide a means for command-inclined players to generate their own missions in order to help guide their Empire to victory. This is probably going to be more effective (particularly if there are awards for completing missions) than having different people yelling on /contall or /global for the zerg to do twelve different things.

The ideas behind it seem sound, but it's impossible to say how it's going to actually work out until it's intensively played with on a pop-locked continent, and calling it pointless and stupid and ineffective at this point is dumb.

[Xyntech]

The ideas behind it seem sound, but it's impossible to say how it's going to actually work out until it's intensively played with on a pop-locked continent, and calling it pointless and stupid and ineffective at this point is dumb.

I agree. Certainly not the final word in leadership tools, but potentially a valuable tool none the less.

Even ignoring the other problems with CR5, I think that adding a mission would be a lot better than spamming CR5 global chat with "Get off Cyssor! Get off Cyssor! We need people on Amerish! Go to Amerish! Go, go, go!"

[Red Beard]

As I pointed out in another thread; I think a feedback system for rating legitimate leadership skills and reputation would be useful if it stayed out of the micromanaging of command relationships.

Leadership is inspiring others to follow you due to your ability to produce the desired results, and if good leadership in this case generates more experience gain than bad leadership, then even the zerg can be induced into giving accurate leadership feedback, as long as the experience reward system is structured properly.

Assuming that is the case, then I think these two things should be combined:

A leadership ratings system based on "underling feedback" that's compiled on a leader based on 'exit reviews' (something like genius on iTunes, or the consumer feedback on Ebay)...the incentive being experience generated for those under his (or her) command. It could be an automatic calculation based simply on experience generated for your followers, or peer review, or a combination of both.

Using that as a ratings system for reference as people shop for anything leadership related would be ideal in my opinion.

The key part of this design relies on the proper implementation of experience rewards both on the leader and follower side of the equation, and if that is set up properly, I think a command structure would form organicly and intuitively, without any micromanaging from the Devs.

Yea or Nay?

[kaffis]

And no, your "mission system" is not adequate.
p0intman, nothing against you, but I do hope Higby takes this as a challenge and sets out to prove you wrong.

There's no reason a comprehensive, granular, heirarchical system that works cannot be developed with the right feedback and developer attention.

So instead of denouncing something that hasn't even been shown to us, why not go into beta with the approach that we can make the mission system awesome by partnering with the development team and making it a priority goal to MAKE it awesome?

Whenever I see threads like this, I can't help but wonder, even though I have never heard of the poster(s) railing so heavily against command structures or mission systems before, whether we're not just witnessing some guy with a Napoleon complex scared that if a game system to facilitate leadership works, somebody might come out of nowhere and prove to be a better leader than they, so they must instead devote all kinds of energy to ensuring that their big gang of buddies can out-shout or out-number any other budding tactical thinkers in the game and stay "in charge."

[Xyntech]

As I pointed out in another thread; I think a feedback system for rating legitimate leadership skills and reputation would be useful if it stayed out of the micromanaging of command relationships.

Leadership is inspiring others to follow you due to your ability to produce the desired results, and if good leadership in this case generates more experience gain than bad leadership, then even the zerg can be induced into giving accurate leadership feedback, as long as the experience reward system is structured properly.

Assuming that is the case, then I think these two things should be combined:

A leadership ratings system based on "underling feedback" that's compiled on a leader based on 'exit reviews' (something like genius on iTunes, or the consumer feedback on Ebay)...the incentive being experience generated for those under his (or her) command. It could be an automatic calculation based simply on experience generated for your followers, or peer review, or a combination of both.

Using that as a ratings system for reference as people shop for anything leadership related would be ideal in my opinion.

The key part of this design relies on the proper implementation of experience rewards both on the leader and follower side of the equation, and if that is set up properly, I think a command structure would form organicly and intuitively, without any micromanaging from the Devs.

Yea or Nay?

Yea, with a couple of notes.

The voting should do two things. If you vote that you like a commander, it raises their profile for all players (except for ones who have already voted that they don't like that commander), while also prioritizing their missions higher for you than other commanders who you haven't rated, or haven't rated as highly.

On the other hand, if you vote that you don't like a commander, it shouldn't lower their profile for other players, it should merely remove their missions from your view. Commanders should be upvoted, never down voted. Obviously this system won't be perfect, but I think that zerg outfits will still have trouble ranking higher than commanders who are popular in general, across multiple outfits and the unorganized zerg. Especially if the zerg outfits don't have the option to downvote players.

To prevent spamming with multiple free accounts, voting could require recent active play time, or else your votes become void until you start playing on that character again. 4 hours per weak maybe? Still could be abused, but not worth the hassle for most players.

My idea of the vote system would be something like giving each player like 100 vote points. They could either give all 100 to a single commander, or split it between multiple commanders. 25 each to 4 you like, or 30 to one, 60 to another. However the player wants to divide it up.

[kaffis]

Cap the number of times you can upvote a given commander, too.

That way, if somebody gives you consistently awesome, fun, meaningful missions, you can max him out at 10 upvotes.

If somebody's more hit and miss, but still is clearly giving thought to stuff, you can give him 5 and then stop upvoting him (but not ignoring him, either).

And then, the zergfits can't just constantly vote for one guy on each account -- they eventually hit a cap.

[p0intman]

p0intman, nothing against you, but I do hope Higby takes this as a challenge and sets out to prove you wrong.



It would be great if he does.

Do it. Go and prove me wrong.

You know what I don't want this to turn into? A zergfit controlled system. That is possibly the single largest problem with it. That is why I propose a joint operations structure instead. Less dick wagging, more pew pew.

Edit: If you believe me to have a napolean complex - which I'd have to disagree with, im not even that good, just better than most of the cr5s these days - I invite you to do better than me. Surely, having someone who is greater than I do all of the leading would actually make things easier for me, because then the target would be on their heads, and not mine. Show me, o great one, how it is done. :rolleyes:

As a sidenote, I am quite tired of people accusing me of having things like a napolean complex or trying to be a single voice for all outfits or whatever without actually stepping up and doing better.

[Sabot]

There's another problem with the misison system as far as I can see though... If a mission comes up, too many might be inclined to go take care of it, leaving the current battle with not enough troops.
I don't by any means think that the mission system is a bad idea, and we don't 100% know how it works yet, so beta might prove me wrong on this. But in the end I tihnk that people will have to be the ones that take care of the tactics of your faction. Easiest way of doing that, is having open communication with other "serious" outfits. If one or two or three players have proven to make sound tactical decisions, they can contact players of other faction that might be specilized in whatever the "commanders" wants to be done.

If we need a drop on a hex behind enemy lines to bind enemy troops at the position, I wouldn't want to wait for a mission to come up, nor would I want to put one up myself, because I'd want players I know can handle it to take care of it. So.. if there is a outfit specialized in this, I'd ask them to deal with ASAP. However, if I were the commander, I would never ask anyone to do something they didn't want to do either. At that point I might want to put up a mission and hope that some of the zerg goeas and takes care of it... or do it myself. It's a game after all and if people aren't having fun there's no point in it at all.

[GuyFawkes]

You ... just .... don't.... follow the.... BAD ...... Commanders


Simples!

This^

Mike33 on werner in ps1 had one of the largest spam outfits on the server , but was still a spoon on almost every level.
Co-ordianting alliances or whatever to make a collective spoonful dosent change the fact that a spoon maybe controlling it. To their underlings they may be god, but to others they are simply a spoon.

Then you have the Gen-O-cide brigade from ps1 '' vaild tactic'' ''yeah but we staring at grey walls for 15 mins''

The game soon sorts the wheat from the chaff

[p0intman]

Then you have the Gen-O-cide brigade from ps1 '' vaild tactic'' ''yeah but we staring at grey walls for 15 mins''

The game soon sorts the wheat from the chaff

It will likely not please you to know that I regularly kill gens with 70-80+ percent pop to make a point to the VS or TR.

[GuyFawkes]

It will likely not please you to know that I regularly kill gens with 70-80+ percent pop to make a point to the VS or TR.

Its not that killing a gen wasnt a valid tactic in certain situations, its just that to a degenrate few it was the only tactic they knew.
Things won't change .There plenty of wanabe generals that always tried using cr5 chat to spam ideas on the rest of us , but there was only 3 or 4 real leaders across all the servers on all the empires who really really knew what they were doing and gel everyone together into a super army for a few hours.

[Mechzz]

....

A leadership ratings system based on "underling feedback" that's compiled on a leader based on 'exit reviews' (something like genius on iTunes, or the consumer feedback on Ebay)...the incentive being experience generated for those under his (or her) command. It could be an automatic calculation based simply on experience generated for your followers, or peer review, or a combination of both.

...

Hehe! This is a neat idea Red Beard, but it made me giggle when I read it. It made think of the new "questionnaire-filling" meta-game it would bring to planetside2.

So you're waiting to spawn after a mission is completed. Pop-up says "could you spare us 5 minutes of your time to give us your feedback on the mission you just completed".

Still, if they gave us dog-tags for completing the questionnaires, I would probably fill in a few!