Taking Command

Shanesan · 2012-03-24, 02:36 AM

Commanding in Battlefield 2 was one of my favorite things to do in that game. "Commanding" in PlanetSide was terrible and I never did it. I have not found a thread with the proposed Command architectures, and their gaping holes, written down. Don't worry, I'll take care of that.

This thread is not about Squad Leaders. This is about the battlefield from orbit. This is about coordinating strikes and micromanaging. This is about commanding.

Command "Rank"
First, there is no Command Rank. You don't rank up a command level anymore. As Bags posted in the FAQ, it's part of a certification tree. Add certification points into Commander and you will be a "more effective" Commander. Whatever that means.

Appointing Commanders
Higby's big dream is to have a "follow" system, like Twitter, for Commanders. Essentially, users or outfits "follow" three people: A Commander, their Squad Leader, and Outfit Leader if I understood correctly. The squad leader and outfit leader are easily chosen; you pick them (they're picked for you?) and that's it. But how do you pick a Commander?

People are concerned that Commanders will just become a popularity contest, though choosing a Commander has not really been discussed in any real depth. How to make a successful Commander seen and known has also not been discussed in any real depth. Deciding you want to Command with no success or failure in the past as a Commander, and how to get started, has not been discussed. I hope an SoE Planetside Staff can give us a hand here.

Commanding Basics
Once a Commander starts to receive followers, a Commander can grant his followers "missions". These missions garnish Bonus XP for his followers on completion.

That's all we know about Commanding. For how huge a flub the Command system was in PS1, I would think this would be a primary topic. I asked about commanding in Higby's AMAA, but obviously it's something that we need to wait for.

What do you think Commanders should have, or would need, to be effective at commanding our ground and air forces?

sylphaen · 2012-03-24, 07:03 AM

Commanding is a lot of work. Even with a good command system -command systems are only meant to make it easier to command a lot of people since they will never replace commanders-, you will alwys need to deal with people. Dealing with people is a lot of work.

In PS2, you will not have to create a website or get a voice chat server to make it easier to interact. It will make grouping easier and make commanding people you do not know less tedious. These are very limited aspects of commanding.

Not considering all the extra set-up part to run a group in PS1 (it minimally involves a way to keep the group together like a forum along with voice chat for operations in-game), PS2 will not offer a ton more than PS1.

Yes, there will be missions. Yes, there will be the twitter like public command structure. Yes, there may be other stuff to make your work easier. But in the end, you still have to deal with people.

The new tools are mainly to facilitate teamwork for people not already in a group or who don't know each other. They are nice but will not make you a commander.

Commanding is about people. Commanders are only as good as how they take care of their people. While any system can make it easier to lead a group of unkowns towards an objective, it is not truly commanding until you get into the human aspect of it.

Those are just my opinion on command and personally, I do not like commanding too much since it represents a LOT of work, preparation and dedication towards your team. However, I do love playing for my team.

Command is not for everyone and if you did not become a commander in PS1, maybe it is not for you either. Or maybe it is, I cannot tell.

What I know is that true leaders, when there is a need for them, do not need a system to stand up and lead. The system is just there to make the process faster and easier.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-24, 07:36 AM

Commanders in the military say "Do this" and it gets done.

This is not the military, so the best laid plans of the most brilliant strategist are dependent on the whim of the zerg. An outfit with 30 online players only represents a few percent of the empire population. They'd have to be pretty bloody good to actually effect a change.

I'd love to have the option of some sort of brain implant in the zerg that I can remote detonate until they start to obey orders.

From what we know about the current command structure and the nature of the human race, whichever commander spams the easiest to achieve missions will become the most respected/followed/important commander in the faction, even if those missions are irrelevant to the empire's survival.

I can't tell you how many times I've wanted to abandon a fight and base capture in PS1 because I saw us getting caught in the middle of a brutal 3 way in 20 minutes. If we had abandoned the base and relocated to the flank, some other faction would be the meat in the sandwich.

With zerg-x-plode I can get the effect I want in the timeframe I need

Dart · 2012-03-24, 07:53 AM

I disagree that commanding within PlanetSide was terrible. In fact, for me, the global meta game was one of the consistently enjoyable aspects of the game - right from 2003 to the present day.

That aside, I'm afraid leadership in an MMO will always be a popularity contest. Until somebody create e-court-marshalls gamers will have a choice about who they follow and as sylphaen noted, this will largely come down to inter-personal skills. Regardless of the command system in place, as long gamers have free will, personality will always be an important quality in a Planetside commander.

Boomzor · 2012-03-24, 08:29 AM

I suppose leadership in general is a popularity contest. Just that the ones who knows what they're doing are the successful ones, but you need at least a modicum of popularity to begin with to start a following at all.

What the game can give us is different prods, whips and carrots to direct that following. I'm stoked to see just how they turn out in PS2.

Reni · 2012-03-24, 08:51 AM

How about the ability for Outfit Leaders to already have some of these functions available to them? An outfit leader should be able to delegate certain command features to his juniors, like a chain of command.

SgtMAD · 2012-03-24, 10:26 AM

Command is simple

GET RESULTS and the like minded ppl in the empire will search you out, its pretty easy

Grognard · 2012-03-24, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Shanesan

This thread is not about Squad Leaders. This is about the battlefield from orbit. This is about coordinating strikes and micromanaging. This is about commanding.

Command "Rank"
First, there is no Command Rank. You don't rank up a command level anymore. As Bags posted in the FAQ, it's part of a certification tree. Add certification points into Commander and you will be a "more effective" Commander. Whatever that means.

How to make a successful Commander seen and known has also not been discussed in any real depth. Deciding you want to Command with no success or failure in the past as a Commander, and how to get started, has not been discussed. I hope an SoE Planetside Staff can give us a hand here.

What do you think Commanders should have, or would need, to be effective at commanding our ground and air forces?

In my opinion... what a commander needs in a game where there are no professional soldiers commited to a chain of command, with highly trained officers lawfully in place... is simply a way to convey clear, concise goals to large groups of people, who themselves have obvious organizational tools to commit themselves to action pursuant to those goals. Complete with a reward system in place to make it worth it to create and accept missions.

Two definitions to address:
1. Clear, concise goals...
The mission system, should just be a way to broadcast what your goals are, via a simple interface, that is accessed by players, at their discretion... Otherwise, we will have a spam-based system from every Joe who wants to be a "general".

2. Organizational tools...
In my opinion the players who can accept missions need to have the proper level of organization before they can accept higher echelon missions from commanders who are deep in the leadership tree. The "Squad" is simply not enough... we need platoons, and companies...

In the mission system, when you first start your tree, you should be limited, or a day-one rookie will address everyone, and thats a problem... The mission system needs to have a layered, progressive set-up. When you first start, the missions should be very basic, and able to be accomplished by a single soldier, or small group of people, not to exceed a squad. A single soldier, or squad leader should be able to choose a mission, and get a reward for success, as does the leader who generated it. As this progresses, the leader will be able to flesh out his leadership tree, allowing for more "depth".

This depth should allow a leader to generate missions for higher command level units, but this necessitates bringing back not only platoons, but companies as well... Once the tree starts to fill up, a leader should be able to do things like link the smaller tactical missions into a larger strategic goals, much like a pyramid... A mission to take a base would be a company level assignment, or taking a tower for platoons, or patrolling/fighting in an area for a certain amount of time for a squad. These are examples only, but the big goal would be supported by lots of support missions to that end.

High level leaders should be dealing with "mission packages"... ie. a strategic goal, with supporting tactical steps. Low level leaders should be creating tactical steps only, until they learn the ropes, and people finish the missions they create. Intermediate leaders could just be dealing with linked tactical steps. Everything under your "pay-grade" should accessible... if you have a completely filled out leadership tree and just feel like making small unit tactical content, no problem.

This is why I strongly believe that Squads, Platoons, and Companies are necessary... because you just dont send a squad to do something that takes 100 soldiers to accomplish, and mission generation should reflect that. A rookie leader should be able to generate up to squad appropriate content, an intermediate leader generates up to platoon appropriate content, and a master generates up to company appropriate content.

Im sure there are some holes in my conception of a "good system", but this is, in a nutshell, how I would like to see it work...

Graywolves · 2012-03-24, 08:11 PM

I enjoyed commanding in PS1 back in 05ish

Shanesan · 2012-03-24, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Grognard

In the mission system, when you first start your tree, you should be limited, or a day-one rookie will address everyone, and thats a problem... The mission system needs to have a layered, progressive set-up. When you first start, the missions should be very basic, and able to be accomplished by a single soldier, or small group of people, not to exceed a squad. A single soldier, or squad leader should be able to choose a mission, and get a reward for success, as does the leader who generated it. As this progresses, the leader will be able to flesh out his leadership tree, allowing for more "depth".

This depth should allow a leader to generate missions for higher command level units, but this necessitates bringing back not only platoons, but companies as well... Once the tree starts to fill up, a leader should be able to do things like link the smaller tactical missions into a larger strategic goals, much like a pyramid... A mission to take a base would be a company level assignment, or taking a tower for platoons, or patrolling/fighting in an area for a certain amount of time for a squad. These are examples only, but the big goal would be supported by lots of support missions to that end.

High level leaders should be dealing with "mission packages"... ie. a strategic goal, with supporting tactical steps. Low level leaders should be creating tactical steps only, until they learn the ropes, and people finish the missions they create. Intermediate leaders could just be dealing with linked tactical steps. Everything under your "pay-grade" should accessible... if you have a completely filled out leadership tree and just feel like making small unit tactical content, no problem.

Grognard for President.

I love the whole "you start off small, giving small squads low-threat missions based on tactical choices from the commanders above" and slowly work your way up to the more grand-reaching decision maker position.

That's amazing. Higby, hear this!

Knocky · 2012-03-25, 04:38 AM

There is not a single chance in hell that I would follow anyone not of my own choosing.

This is the point of Outfits we CHOOSE who our leaders are.

Trolltaxi · 2012-03-25, 04:56 AM

I'd suggets a system like twitter. You can sign up to your valued commander's mission. No matter why you like him as a commander you will see what he is planning. It is still up to you if you follow or support his missions or not, but you may have the option to report in for duty with your men. Of course approval of the chosen commander is necessary, so he can decide whom he is willing to show his plans.

If the commander has a feedback that how many followers he has he can see the scale he can make plans. If he has 3 followers with less than 20 people total (+ his own squad/platoon of like 15) he may consider joining a siege or support a defense. But if he has 15 followers with more than 100 men, he may issue orders to a frontal assault or attack 2 areas simultaniously. Commanders with followers could still follow other commanders and he could still report in, effectively making a chain of command. Maybe CR, or skill points invested into command skills would decide how many _levels_ of followers you may have.

Notice that this system would not work against free choice and outfit-loyalty. If an outfit has 5 squads they could still sign up for their outfit-leader's missions. But the leader could keep an eye on allied outfit's operations (without reporting for service) or they can decide to actively support their cause ("reporting for duty with 3 squads, 28 men").

As Boomzor said it's a popularity game. HtSgtMAD states that a commander needs to get results and people will follow. I say the same, but why not support it with a quite simple ingame feature that also supports large scale planning and cooperation?

ringring · 2012-03-25, 05:45 AM

Totally agree with sylphaen (also with Dart and Knocky).

If anyone thinks command is about slapping down a few missions, well then try it and see what happens.

The most important and influential tools will be command channel, again. If you can persuade other platoons and outfits to cooperate with you (or you with them) if will be communication that will seal the deal.

In ps1 as will be the case in ps2, you got to know who in other outfits was worth listening to, who talked sense and who could bring their own 'big stick' to the fight.

Missions are only one tool in the tool box, they aren't the whole box by any means.

(ps: bring back platoons)

Brusi · 2012-03-25, 05:51 AM

I have a good feeling about the carrot approach they are putting in with the mission system.

Hopefully we will never have to blow our own tubes to herd the zerg again

Dart · 2012-03-25, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Totally agree with sylphaen (also with Dart and Knocky).

If anyone thinks command is about slapping down a few missions, well then try it and see what happens.

The most important and influential tools will be command channel, again. If you can persuade other platoons and outfits to cooperate with you (or you with them) if will be communication that will seal the deal.

In ps1 as will be the case in ps2, you got to know who in other outfits was worth listening to, who talked sense and who could bring their own 'big stick' to the fight.

Missions are only one tool in the tool box, they aren't the whole box by any means.

(ps: bring back platoons)

I'm starting to wonder just how useful 'missions' will actually be. I know they'll be popular because they'll offer extra experience for those completing the tasks but it seems to me there is a pretty major issue with them...

Perhaps it's just my suspicious nature, but if I create a mission for my Outfit to undertake, what's to stop an opposing player using a second account to hop on an alt (f2p and all) and see exactly where we're going? More over what would prevent them looking at all of an our Empire's available missions and relaying them back to their allies? Wouldn't this effectively kill mass Empire 'raids' and make any kind of tactical subterfuge almost entirely redundant?

Unless I hear a good reason why this will be impossible, I highly doubt DT will be advertising any of our targets.