very interesting post about command structure on reddit

Phantomdestiny · 2013-07-31, 10:02 AM

http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...and_structure/

open in a new tab to read it better

Presenting the suggested new and improved PlanetSide 2 Command Structure! i.imgur.com/xUDBqHT.png
1. Overview
First off, the platoon is what makes this game really shine. It gives otherwise disorganized individuals the framework and freedom to play in a cooperative way, which has benefits for everyone. In short, playing in a platoon is what this game is all about. As a huge fan of PS2 I will try to explain why I believe this system can be improved upon.
In detail
Information that is not crucial but is still noteworthy and of interest is presented as quote text as it is here. This does not mean that these blocks are quotes. I just needed some way to distinguish this text from the normal text display.
After much thought and reading, as well as personal experience, I believe that the current platoon system is fundamentally flawed in some ways. It is (1) too rigid and does not scale well as the number of players in a platoon increases. Furthermore, (2) the current platoon system is not efficient in supporting coordination attempts between two or more platoons, such as is commonplace in inter-outfit operations. Additionally, (3) the current system does not provide for a sufficient number of officers, and as such, existing officers have too great a burden of command placed on them that is leading to officer fatigue in many cases.

2. Command Structure Diagram
This diagram is pretty self-explanatory. Each unit includes a number in parentheses that indicates the maximum unit size at that level (tier) of command. Ie. a company is made up of a maximum of 90 soldiers, which corresponds to 3 full platoons of 30 soldiers each.

3. Objectives and Rationale
This attempt to overhaul the PS2 platoon structure is heavily inspired by the US Marine, British Army, and German Army platoon units. Aspects of the overall design were incorporated from each of these 3 military services. If you are interested, you may wish to check out the Platoon article on wikipedia. Also refer to the Marines "rule of three" and the German command squad (Zugtrupp) unit.
I focused on creating a command structure that tries to achieve the following objectives:
[1] Flexible in deployment.
[2] Scalable in inter-outfit operations.
[3] Minimize leadership burden (so-called PL burnout problem)
Fundamental to these objectives is the idea that all players have defined roles and responsibilities. Every solider in the unit (COs, NCOs, and squad-mates alike) has certain functions that they are responsible for and specific roles that they must try to fulfill (the concept of delegation). These will be discussed later.

4. Command structure
Now, on to explaining and discussing the proposed changes in detail.
The first major change you will notice is that the current 2 tier architecture of the platoon system has been replaced with a new 4 tier architecture. The 4 tiers (from highest to lowest level) are:
1) Company (new)
2) Platoon
3) Squad
4) Fireteam (new)
4.1 Company
At the highest level is the Company unit. A company is formed when 2 or 3 platoons join together to achieve some common objective. As such these platoons must share a joint leader. This leader is the Company Commander (CC). The CC is responsible for coordinating the platoons under their command to achieve strategic objectives. The CC is attached to one of the platoon's command squads, which will be discussed next, in order to keep the continuity of the squad system. The CC is, however, not required to actively participate in tactical warfare by leading squads in combat as this function is delegated to the other leadership levels. In very large organized play, it will the responsibility of the CC to coordinate faction wide movements with the CCs of other companies. Tools to support this as well as other levels of communication are discussed later.

4.2 Platoon
Below the company level we find the Platoon unit. The platoon is the integral level where most battlefield decisions are made. A platoon is comprised of a Command Squad and 3 combat squads. A platoon is led by a Platoon Commander / Leader (PL) who takes orders from the CC if the platoon is also part of a company. The PL is assisted by his Platoon NCO (Platoon Sergeant) in matters regarding keeping order and cohesion in the platoon. These can be thought of as day-to-day management activities of the platoon that the PL really cannot afford to be wasting their time on.
In detail
The 4 open slots in the command squad may be filled by support personnel as the operation requires. For example, roles that are not well suited to the standard chain of command (CoC), but that still provide valuable support assets to the platoon may fit well into these extra command slots. For example: pilot and gunner flying a Lib, ESF air defense, Harasser recon patrol, Infil scouts etc. The list of options will vary based on operational requirements and platoon play style.
The PL is responsible for low level strategic (or high level tactical) decision making, coordinating the other 3 squads under their command, and coordinating efforts with the other PL's and the CC if the platoon is part of a company unit.

4.3 Squad
Under the platoon level we find the Squad unit. The squad is led by a Squad Leader (SL) who is assisted by their Squad NCO (Squad Sergeant) in matters regarding the management of the squad. The SL is responsible for carrying out orders given to them by their PL. The Squad NCO is responsible for helping ensure that other squad-mates follow the objectives and work as a unit. Each squad both operates in isolation and in conjunction with other squads. However, as far as the squad-mates should be concerned, their first responsibility is to follow their objective regardless of their overall situational awareness.

4.4 Fireteam
At the lowest level is the Fireteam unit. Each squad consists of 2 fireteams. One fireteam is led by the SL and the other fireteam is led by the Squad NCO. The fireteam unit forms the basis for a close-knit team that all teamplay can grow from. At its core, each squad-mate only has 3 things to worry about, namely, the other 3 members of their fireteam.

5. Roles and responsibilities
The basic responsibilities of the officers at each tier has already been discussed. In addition though, the allocation of one CO and one NCO at each level in the CoC hierarchy beneath company level has an additional benefit. It provides redundancy protection for the overall command structure in the event that the CO's game client crashes or they disconnect. The immediate effect of such a crash would be that the NCO is automatically promoted to the role of CO and the role of NCO is re-established by automatic promoting of another squad-mate to fill the position. Hence, each platoon and squad will have a fallback mechanism to rely on to keep the leadership roles functioning and effective.
Whereas the COs (PLs and SLs) will be entrusted with the command of their units, the NCO's (Platoon and Squad Sergeants) will fulfil a more hands-on role in dealing with individual players. It is the responsibility of the NCO to deal with troublesome players and respond to requests relating to players directly, such as moving players around or accepting player invites. This frees the COs time up to focus on what they really should be focusing on, that is, getting their units into positions that will help their faction.
The in-game tools to support these roles would be defined based on the needs of the officers at the various levels of command. For instance, the ability to kick players would be available to both PLs and Platoon NCOs, however, only the Platoon NCO would usually be required to perform this task.

6. Communication Tools
This new command structure would undoubtedly require a redesign of the communication channels that are available. I propose that specific role-based comms channels be made available to support unit interactions. I further propose that some comms channels operate in a dual mode, where some roles have transmit (talk) capabilities while other roles have only receive (listen) capabilities on that channel. This would help to resolve the problem of comms becoming congested with non essential chatter (especially at platoon level).
At the highest tier of company level, CCs would need a Company Comms channel that is only available to CCs and PLs (but possibly also Platoon NCOs). Only CCs would be able to transmit on Company Comms, whereas PLs (and optionally Platoon NCO's) can only receive on this channel. This would be the go-to channel to coordinate faction-wide operations. The CC should also be able to exclude themselves from any intra-platoon comms, as this is really operating on a lower level that what the CC should be caring about.
At the next lower tier of platoon level, the officers (both COs and NCOs) would need a Platoon Comms channel that is configurable to allow or deny transmits from various roles. Ie. Modes can be 1) only officers or 2) all players. The active configuration can be selected by the CC and the PL exclusively. Alternatively, it may be a good idea to allow platoons to access a separate Officer Comms channel that supersedes and is separate to regular platoon comms and is obviously only available to officers in a platoon.
The squad tier can still have access to a Squad Comms channel that is open to all squad-mates. A low level Fireteam Comms channel is nice to have but mostly non-essential.
In the event that a squad-mate wants to lodge a complaint about something, and the Platoon Comms channel is closed to transmissions by non-officers, they must then proceed to send a message via text chat to the relevant player or alternatively ask his SL (or Squad NCO) to relay his message up the CoC. This may seem a bit harsh, but the idea is to try keep comms clear of any non-essential chatter as far as possible.
In detail
In order to avoid abuse by officers on fellow players, it would be a good idea to allow a peer voting system where fellow officers could vote to remove under-performing or abusive officers from their positions. This could be particularly important with CCs and PLs who could otherwise exercise too much control over other players. This would be more used in platoons with a large proportion of non-outfit members, where the quality of leadership cannot be relied upon.

7. Conclusion
The proposed changes to the command structure that are presented here will hopefully be able to provide a more immersive and enjoyable experience to players. In particular, it may encourage more people to step up and take the role of officers that are currently sorely lacking due to the issues with platoon leading experienced in many outfits. I have tried to keep the discussion as brief as possible while still covering all the important points that I could think of. As such, issues such as how to reward players for taking on leadership roles that has been discussed elsewhere is not a part of this discussion. Feel free however to add in your own ideas of how to overcome the leadership problem if you have any good ideas that can help take PS2 to even greater heights.
Lastly, any of these recommendations should not be seen to introduce unnecessary complexity into the command system. Even though these ideas cater more for serious play, the same framework can be used equally well in casual play. Just because an option exists, doesnt mean players are forced to use it. If the idea of company organization is not interesting to your outfit, then its still OK to operate on a platoon only level. But I believe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and you are always free to reconsider your options.
Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions (sorry it was so long), and I hope it brings about some good changes and gets players thinking of ways to improve our leadership game.
Also, thank you SOE for all your hard work to create this special game. Your endeavors do not go unnoticed.

ringring · 2013-07-31, 10:13 AM

My problem with nearly every commend structure suggestion I see is that they don't recognise game aspects that don't translate from real world experiences.
Firstly the existence of autonomous outfits and the zerg. Each has their own motivations that govern their actions.

Secondly players cannot be disciplined like soldiers and consequently the command structure cannot be as regimented.

With respect to this article he does identify a real issue that has carried over from PS1, the stress that leading can have - leading to burn out. Anything that will help with that is useful and I must admit that when I was watching the development of PS2 prior to beta I did imagine we would get a more 'complex' structure.

However, for me the main problem is what happens above the level of platoon, namely empire-wide direction.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-07-31, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

My problem with nearly every commend structure suggestion I see is that they don't recognise game aspects that don't translate from real world experiences.
Firstly the existence of autonomous outfits and the zerg. Each has their own motivations that govern their actions.

Secondly players cannot be disciplined like soldiers and consequently the command structure cannot be as regimented.

With respect to this article he does identify a real issue that has carried over from PS1, the stress that leading can have - leading to burn out. Anything that will help with that is useful and I must admit that when I was watching the development of PS2 prior to beta I did imagine we would get a more 'complex' structure.

However, for me the main problem is what happens above the level of platoon, namely empire-wide direction.

maybe the outfit specialization will allow for different types of command structures which would help with that problem .

NewSith · 2013-07-31, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Firstly the existence of autonomous outfits and the zerg. Each has their own motivations that govern their actions.

Mercenaries(yS)!

The closing remark to your post would be - the existance of pure ranks without any benefits to them only complicates things and makes many things senseless. (BRs in PS1 vs BRs in PS2, anyone?)

A good example of a good command rank structure from PS1

SL CR0 - Squad EXP Point, /sl chat
SL CR1 - Wapypoints, access to CUD, small-area CR-specific /command chat
SL CR2 - Reveal Friendlies, small-area CR-specific /command chat
SL CR3 - EMP, small-area CR-specific /command chat
SL CR4 - Small OS, small enemy reveal, continental CR-specific /command chat
SL CR5 - Large OS, large enemy reveal, global CR-specific /command chat, Global and Continental Chats

This is a command structure built with civilian mindset in mind. As you can see, it gives chats, but to avoid it being just "ranks for the sake of chat, it alsoprovides specific options for command. I'm not talking about the options themselves here, I'm talking about complicated command structures being unnecessary.

Eggy · 2013-07-31, 12:18 PM

The default PS2 command structure has to default to the lowest common denominator. The current systems does this OK now, not great but its ok and gets the job done.

You cant use a 100% miltary system when there are zero penatlys for non conformity and anyway LittleJohnySoldier had to go have his Dinner, his mum said so.

In a GAME of this size we dont need the 4 or 6 man fireteam concept. That just half a sqaud simple, no need to make it more complex for everyone. Some outfits allready run fireteams internaly. This works great for them and doesnt need any more input.
My experience in PS2 is that people allready try and overstretch there resources. Expecting 1 squad to hold down 3 areas at 2 different bases for exmple.

At the top of the tree. If your allready running multiple platoons, you should allready have a group of people who do and are willing to lead them. Deciding to go all balls deep on one target or split your forces and do multiple things is your own command decision. Above that you have leader chat that allready allows you to communicate with every outfit and SL/PL on the server.

The 1 issue I see time and time again has allready been mentioned by ringring, burnout. Here the burden lies on the comander as much as it does SOE. It takes less than 60 seconds, to decide its time to log off, or just let someone else take point for a change.

The PS1 command structure was simple and effective but it was easily abused. It was easy to get CR without performing any leadership tasks at all.

A peer voting system stands no chance of working either. Too many trolls and too many brown nosers.

Rolfski · 2013-07-31, 02:46 PM

Although PL burn out is a huge problem in this game, this proposed system is just way too complicated for the average player that just wants too shoot stuff.
There's an argument to make for shrinking platoons to 30 man though as I consider this the maximum amount of players that can sit in one comms channel before it becomes too noisy.

The whole NCO layer needs to go though. Nobody wants to lead in the current game so forget it about ever fulfilling all these NCO roles.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-07-31, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Although PL burn out is a huge problem in this game, this proposed system is just way too complicated for the average player that just wants too shoot stuff.
There's an argument to make for shrinking platoons to 30 man though as I consider this the maximum amount of players that can sit in one comms channel before it becomes too noisy.

The whole NCO layer needs to go though. Nobody wants to lead in the current game so forget it about ever fulfilling all these NCO roles.

i think you should be able to choose when making a platoon if you want a normal (12 sl + 3 pl + CC) or hardcore platoon/company (NCO + 12 ftl + 3 PL + CC + 12 SL )

Varsam · 2013-08-01, 07:59 PM

Most organized outfits do this internally already, with the help of 3rd party voIPs and whisper lists. The people who desire this level of organization are the same people who actively seek out these outfits for that very reason.

There's no reason to overcomplicate an already immensely complex game for the casuals by forcing military style partitioning down their throats. The current platoon system is cumbersome and limited, but it's easy to learn and does an adequate job. It's fine as is.

If we lack anything, it's an easy and convenient way for platoon leads to effectively communicate and coordinate with each other. Leader channel is more often than not a shouting match of 20+ disparate voices or dead silence. A simple tactical map separate from the standard map, where leaders could visually represent their group with an icon and/or outfit tag and it's intended movements would help other leaders plan their own movements.

More than anything, we need a replacement mechanic to take the function of an actual single person acting as "faction commander", and for God's sake actually reward leadership with xp.