Why lead a squad?

[Hamma]

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

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

[DviddLeff]

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

[Extro]

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

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

[Justaman]

Summation of thread:

Originally Posted by basti

I dont want any in game direct reward for leading.

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

Originally Posted by Graywolves

I used to lead because I wanted to lead.

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

Originally Posted by sylphaen

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

The key part of that statement is "natural".

Originally Posted by Shogun

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

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

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

OS has been confirmed, but its deep in the leadership certs, and as the dev's have said, you won't have as many points to put into actual combat certs if you use leadership certs for your load-out (because the certs are one and the same, leadership is just another "branch" in the certs tree)

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

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

Smell that? Smells like balance....

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

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

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

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Extro

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

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

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

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

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

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

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

Why did no one jump on this?

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

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

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

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

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

[Lonehunter]

Originally Posted by SteinB

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

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

[ARosaria]

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

[Xyntech]

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

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

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

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

[Crator]

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

[DviddLeff]

Originally Posted by Crator

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by Crator

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

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

Reward for leading should be always stuff that affect leading.

[Furret]

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

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

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

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

[CuddlyChud]

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