Why lead a squad?

[ThGlump]

Well you said it yourself

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

its true that PS1 never really needed squadwork, you just had to follow the zerg.

Those "leaders" that only get bunch of ppl, and then dont care about leading and dont work as a squad, those we can live without. They didnt not care about leading, it was all for personal benefit to get that overpowered OS. Thats why most here is against some personal combat benefit for leading.

And whats difference between 10 ppl that dont cooperate, and 10 ppl that dont cooperate but have been invited by pseudoleader that want only cep? Without benefits those who actually want lead will do it. Rest would only invite ppl and the do nothing, and those leaders wont be missed.

[SgtMAD]

you ppl keep telling yourself that PS1 never needed teamwork,you will still be the ones that get raped every time you run up against any outfit that uses teamwork as a basic principle,then you can ran back to the forums and cry about squads needing a nerf because they are too OP.

whats funny is all we ever saw was TRx cheats, DT sucks, Ht uses cheap tactics,PcP never "played" for the TR empire,FC was a bunch of reaver campers,Vindicators,Mercs all sucked the one thing these outfits all had in common was the strong teamplay associated with each group.

so I am all for all you not squadding up,go ahead and run around solo,it makes generating a farm so much more easier so I can keep my killwhores happy and playing PS2 longer instead of getting bored and moving on to the next game

[CuddlyChud]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

so I am all for all you not squadding up,go ahead and run around solo,it makes generating a farm so much more easier so I can keep my killwhores happy and playing PS2 longer instead of getting bored and moving on to the next game

I don't think anyone in this thread wants people not to squad up. The entire point was how to encourage people to create squads. Even if they're not particularly good leaders or don't particularly like to lead. Squads were an important feature of the game. Even if you're squad wasn't particularly organized (which most weren't, unless I was playing a completely different game from all you for all those years), you could share xp, see each other on the map, and people were generally more willing to help out squad members than they were randoms.

I'm not saying bring back the OS. I'm not saying squad-work is useless so no one should be able to squad up. I just wanted to point out that CEP and CR were a large factor in the number of squads that ran around in PS1, and I think without some form of incentive, more people will lonewolf, due to lack of space in squads. This is simply something i've seen in games like BF2, BF2142 and BF3

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

you could share xp, see each other on the map, and people were generally more willing to help out squad members than they were randoms.

If thats all you want from squad, you dont need leader. You can just group with someone into squad. No reason there should be some benefit/incentive for leader, if nobody lead and you only play as a group. If that is all they expect from squad then that will be enough incentive to form a squad.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

If thats all you want from squad, you dont need leader. You can just group with someone into squad. No reason there should be some benefit/incentive for leader, if nobody lead and you only play as a group. If that is all they expect from squad then that will be enough incentive to form a squad.

Especially with the option to have your squad open for anyone to join freely.

Want the XP bonus? Join an open squad. No open squads? Form one and wait for like minded individuals to join. It won't take long in a high population environment.

No rewards needed at all.

Again, I have no problem with there being rewards for leading, but they should be rewards for ACTUALLY leading, not just being the figurehead of a squad. I don't receive any reward for carrying a medigun around, I only get rewarded for using it.

[NCLynx]

For simple 10 man squads? I've never seen a "leader" be 100% necessary. Even without a leader in said squad 10 people who work together will get more done than a single loner. Just because there's a group deciding where to go as a team instead of one person giving orders doesn't make it any less effective.

I can even see that working in 40 man platoons (they have been bumped up to 40 IIRC) albeit probably a little more hectic, so yes I can see a leader being more useful in that situation.

I guess what I'm getting at is we don't need to worry about there being a "lack of leaders", there will always be enough people willing to lead. What we SHOULD be worried about are the amount of people willing to lead that can lead *well*.

[GuvNuh]

For me the sight of 50 people bumbling around in a killzone for 45 minutes getting mauled is enough incentive to take a leadership role. It Sickens me. There is ALWAYS a better way than simply slamming 50 idiots who don't communicate into a defense and hoping for the best. If you've played planetside in the past 2 years, your opinion of leadership is accurate and understandable, but trust me on this-Active leadership does make a difference. It's the difference between a galaxy taking 5 minutes to load versus 30 seconds to load and take off. It's the difference between a dozen tanks fighting individually, and getting picked off for it, and working as a unit, covering yer injured, and either stomp the enemy or making it out alive.

As i said, played planetside anytime in the last 2 years a sour attitude on leadership is understandable, but good leadership does make a difference. If nothing else it's a guy yelling "STOP" tossing out a jammer grenade, and saving you from that boomer hidden in the door you didn't even suspect was there.