Simple and Balanced Global/Supreme Commander Leadership System by inigma

inigma · 2011-12-13, 01:49 AM

Simple and Balanced Global/Supreme Commander Leadership System V.2 by inigma:

1. a global commander arises when 5 of 9 commanders pick one player for the role until voted out.

2. commanders are automatically selected by the system from the current pool of online squad or platoon leaders with the greatest number of members in their squad or platoon, with the highest command rank, and battle rank, and length of service in that order until 5 are selected, and no more than 9 designated. (players may opt out of being auto-selected by the system). Platoon leaders preferred over squad leaders. This way a cr3 player in charge of a 20 man platoon would be a commander vs a cr5 player squadding with only a single buddy.

3. gc is given ability to designate waypoints and map instructions visible to all players for the length of time they are online or until voted out in favor of a new gc. gc retains powers (even if offline) until a new gc is elected by 5 online commanders.

That's it. No other fluff.

Lead the largest platoon or largest squad online, gain a command spot. In a tie? Your cr and br and length of service will help you beat the other guy if the 9 commander spots are already all full. Once a commander, you get to vote for gc, even for yourself if you want.

Captain1nsaneo · 2011-12-13, 02:30 AM

So to lead, I'd have to campaign with my fellow players to get votes and then once I'm there I'm limited to how I can play?

I get that you're trying to add more democratic methods into leadership in an effort to get better leaders but some situations actually work better with dictatorships. Military is one of those and outfits are each their own fief and they will sort out who is best qualified to lead. You'll get a worse result by adding more people to the voting pool.

Bittermen · 2011-12-13, 02:37 AM

Can't see this ever working.

Be cool if it was like that though!

Aractain · 2011-12-13, 02:51 AM

That sounds like a great Rome FPS you got goin there.... Not very fun in a modern action game though. :P

Reputation (not a game mechanic, what you think of the person) and a global mission system (with their name on it) are much better ways to handle leadership. Its like voting but it actually makes sense.

Also, that is not "really simple". Just so you know.

inigma · 2011-12-13, 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo

So to lead, I'd have to campaign with my fellow players to get votes and then once I'm there I'm limited to how I can play?

I get that you're trying to add more democratic methods into leadership in an effort to get better leaders but some situations actually work better with dictatorships. Military is one of those and outfits are each their own fief and they will sort out who is best qualified to lead. You'll get a worse result by adding more people to the voting pool.

It's not really a democratic method of leadership. It's more of a republican form, whereby the public auto-votes for senators (often weighted towards whatever outfit members may be online as they are most likely to have their auto-votes set), and it is the senators who decide among their small clique who they think is best to serve as Global Commander for the duration of their support. The republican form will ensure that the gc is qualified, and that there won't be any public campaigning for gc.

If someone wants to be a gc, they contact the current senators. It is the senators who decide who they think will lead best. Everyone else just plays following missions and people they want to follow and really wouldn't give a rip. Now someone could campaign in their SOI to get people to vote for them to be a senator, but who would listen, and could someone really garner enough attention and quickly enough to do so? Probably not. Thus joining popular online outfits would be your best ticket to a senator spot.

I do like the p2 mission system, and reputation by name. I just think it would be nice if p2 included a means whereby a global commander could arise from time to time, and I think a republican form of election by a small online group of 9 people would work the best. How those 9 get there really wouldn't matter as long as it was reputation based (thus the reason for the automatically-set-votes of current online players).

inigma · 2011-12-13, 03:10 AM

deleted for duplicate of op. for those that responded above, feel free to re-read the op and comment below. the old idea was a bit bloated, so i drafted a much simpler new version. enjoy!

Bittermen · 2011-12-13, 03:38 AM

Like that.

Aractain · 2011-12-13, 04:16 AM

Its better than before but all this goverment does is let someone draw big penises on the map for everyone to look at (NOT literally, was just a joke).

I spent a lot of time trying to work out how a good voting system could be implmented on such a large scale. Ultimetly you run into the problem of a thousand players and 1 or 5-10 people actualy 'leading' them.

I eventually got the idea that anything where voting a person in or out was bad. Voting by doing is a better solution (so like the 'being in a squad of this dude' bit).

But then I was like "Why have a step inbetween the point of the system?"
Point of system: Get people to do something.
Fastest way of doing it: Let everyone who cares put up "missions" on the map.
Outcome: A player will "vote" by going to the mission he wants to do, he will be rewarded for helping with that objective and the mission leader will be rewarded for giving players direction in the game.

Filter/ignore/highlight systems to manage it, reward/prestige to promote it and Boom. You have natural leaders emerge without limiting new leaders. Conflicts of direction will occur but now the system is directly driven by what players want to do rather than who is currently in charge.

SgtMAD · 2011-12-13, 10:08 AM

voting will never work,this crap has been hashed out so many times on /C that anyone that was around for any of that discussion knows how it can be so damn easily abused.

you don't need some voting system,ppl will follow a leader that gets them results and makes the game fun, if you do all that then the system is just fine.

quit trying to force ppl to "listen" to you,if you can't put together a large enough outfit to do what you want then maybe the problem is your lack of leadership skills and not the game's fault.

Tasorin · 2011-12-13, 11:51 AM

For KGB it boils down to our Clan is not your resource to abuse/use just because some people we don't give to shits about voted you leader in a penis measuring contest.

We will support and coordinate efforts with those who can actually lead and utilize resources in an efficient and effective manner. Those that can and do lead, and do it well, will rise to the top. Their actions and leadership will gain them the respect of other leaders, not because a group of people who ground out the Command tree voted them Global Commander.

This is how its done.

Crator · 2011-12-13, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Aractain

But then I was like "Why have a step inbetween the point of the system?"
Point of system: Get people to do something.
Fastest way of doing it: Let everyone who cares put up "missions" on the map.
Outcome: A player will "vote" by going to the mission he wants to do, he will be rewarded for helping with that objective and the mission leader will be rewarded for giving players direction in the game.

Filter/ignore/highlight systems to manage it, reward/prestige to promote it and Boom. You have natural leaders emerge without limiting new leaders. Conflicts of direction will occur but now the system is directly driven by what players want to do rather than who is currently in charge.

I thought the idea of the mission system was to help new players that don't know much about how the game works. It will lead them to the appropriate locations to play the game. If everyone can put up missions, even ones that don't make any sense, how would the system help the new players then?

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

voting will never work,this crap has been hashed out so many times on /C that anyone that was around for any of that discussion knows how it can be so damn easily abused.

you don't need some voting system,ppl will follow a leader that gets them results and makes the game fun, if you do all that then the system is just fine.

quit trying to force ppl to "listen" to you,if you can't put together a large enough outfit to do what you want then maybe the problem is your lack of leadership skills and not the game's fault.

The issue is not that people will eventually "follow the appropriate leader" it that there are too many people that have the leader role and spam this while another leader spams something else completely different. I understand after a while when one has played the game long enough and knows the difference between a good commander and bad one that you can figure out which ones to put on ignore list but I think there could be a more sophisticated system in place to help with this.

Raymac · 2011-12-13, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

voting will never work,this crap has been hashed out so many times on /C that anyone that was around for any of that discussion knows how it can be so damn easily abused.

you don't need some voting system,ppl will follow a leader that gets them results and makes the game fun, if you do all that then the system is just fine.

quit trying to force ppl to "listen" to you,if you can't put together a large enough outfit to do what you want then maybe the problem is your lack of leadership skills and not the game's fault.

I pretty much agree with this. While voting sounds like a good idea at first, I don't think it's the best way to work it out since rigging the vote is always going to be out there.

I'd personally like to see a more refined system of what was done ad hoc in Planetside 1. Essentially, some "commanders" got a reputation for being either good or bad, and people tended to listen to the better ones. Now, the question for the common soldier is "how do I know who the better commanders are?" And this can probably be accomplished by some sort of rating system either by tracking mission statistics, or manually rating on a scale of 1-10, or some combination of the 2.

This way, you don't limit other people from creating missions, but the higher rated commander missions will naturally carry more weight.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and this...

Tikuto · 2011-12-13, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tikuto

Ok. Suggestion Time.

Soldiers, Officers & Commanders
Based on the previous system of squad leaders, platoon leaders and command ranks.

Leaders each zone/continent (## capacity):

1st priority of Commanders - CR5,4,3,2,1 (battalion leaders, platoon leaders & squad leaders)
2nd priority of Officers - CR0 (platoon leaders & squad leaders)

non-commander, Soldier actions:

Make suggestive actions for selected Officers & Commanders of the zone/continent.
e.g. The typical soldier can laser paint where's best to place an orbital strike, and then the commanders can decide and execute that action at the appointed location.

Officer or Commander actions:

Make reasonable or unreasonable decisions and executions of responsible Commanding abilities like an orbital strike, air strike, BFR activation.
Speak to each other with text chat or always-active voice chat: communication is essential!

Command Experience would be made or unmade from "Evaluation Votes":

Each decision is viewed by all leaders as if they're proposing an executable action. Prompting executable actions.
Each execution by one person is then voted either Bad[X] or Good[✔] from the whole pool of continental leaders. Mostly good votes increases Command Experience. Mostly Bad votes decreases Command Experience.
More voters equals more accuracy or inaccuracy and a greater result.

Effectively the players ultimately decide who's the best Commander(s) (CR5).
Effectively all empires ultimately realize who the better Empire - who is most cooperative.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...3&postcount=11

Lonehunter · 2011-12-13, 02:21 PM

I really dislike anything involving the community electing a leader. That can be too abused, by exploiters or unintentionally. Plus you can't judge who's a better commander or even more worthy by how many people are in their squad.

I do think Commander abilities should only be given to those who actively command, but have yet to see a perfect system

Trolltaxi · 2011-12-13, 02:52 PM

A more simple method: A squad leader may mark other existing squad leaders and platoon leaders as his - well, not commander, but let's say "advisor".

The missions designated by these advisors wil be visible for him too and if he decides to forward it to his own squad/platoon, he is free to do it.

Maybe the advisor status would require the approval of the advisor to prevent any form of "spying".

They may even have a one-way chat-channel so the advisor could share his idea in depth with all the squad leaders following him (but no way to talk back).

The squad leader could turn on/off the advisor missions, and he can pick as much advisors as he wants. There is no limit how much followers an advisor may have. Everyone would have a 'favorite advisors' list too so outfit mates, or members of allied outfits (often working together) would have an easy to use tool to coordinate.

Note, that this system is based on free will of all participating. It won't force anyone to bother with targets that he isn't agreeing with. It won't make a global commander by definiton, but the skilled leaders will have a much larger pool of manpower acting mostly as a team. In case we will have too much maxed out leaders who keep adding more and more missions to your map, this system will still make it viable - you simply ignore those commanders that you don't want to follow. Just think about CR5 chat, everyone is yelling their ideas, making it more of a nuisence than a tool.