The Reality of Leading an Empire Into War

[p0intman]

The problem in PS1's leadership structure is that even though you could grind up to being a CR5, being a CR5 didn't mean someone was an actual leader and was worth listening to. The number of CR5s worth actually paying mind to, was actually quite small compared to the number of CR5s that spoke on command chat or on comall/comcont.

A common misconception was that all CR5s were bad and were worth ignoring. This is not the case, as many of us actually tried to do what we could for the better of our chosen empire. The problem arises that there exists a group think mentality in any large group of people who are asked to do something that they don't appreciate or care to do, such as re-securing or assaulting a base.

There exists a problem with the notion that players should not have a leadership position over other players in an FPS game as large as planetside, that is really that lemmings will follow lemmings unless given direction.

The development team of PS2 seems intent on eradicating any formal leadership structure for each empire. In spite of this, or even despite of it, I have decided to take initiative to fill this problem with a player made solution. I would like to the developers who read this to keep in mind, that if the player base wants something... it will exist, even if you don't formally support it.

Some, or even a few of you have already seen what I have been working on. A number of you have copies, or access to copies of the idea. For the rest, here is what I envision.

An alliance of outfits is already forming, and I am going to be approaching a few more in the near future. The goal of this alliance is to share information and chat channels ingame to coordinate movements on a massive scale that hasn't been witnessed in years. No one outfit is to lead this alliance, but the tactical decisions of the combined opinion of each outfit's squad leaders and tactical thinkers promises to fill in any gaps in empire leadership that the developers may leave vacant regardless of if it was intentionally or not.

The end goal of establishing this solution is to nullify the effect of the so-called "problem leaders" that do things contrary to the goal of having fun for the rest of the empire. There is no reason that a formal leadership structure cannot work and cannot be done correctly.

The coordination and command level discussions will take place on a secure channel either in-game or out of game. That decision resides with how dynamic and reliable the in-game chat system is. If it turns out to be that we need to use something out of game, it is not beyond the realm of possibility of using shared TS/mumble/vent information to coordinate base assaults, just like is sometimes done in PS1.

It is my hope that the developers will embrace this idea and eventually implement a method for players to functionally lead their empire as was tried in PS1. Comall/Comcont is not something to be feared or even loathed. Instead, how it is used by those who lack a desire to do anything constructive is the only real problem with it. In the end, with a lack of a solid in-game foundation, players will always pick up the slack.

And no, your "mission system" is not adequate.

[Xyntech]

I actually think the devs removing the arbitrary CR5 is a good thing in support of your cause. I believe that these kinds of leadership roles should be much more of a meta game, not something dictated by the developers or game mechanics.

Removing the confusion of CR5's will let the true leaders shine clearer I think. It already worked pretty well in PS1, even with limited teamwork and outfit support and the confusion caused by bad CR5's.

I think if the devs are smart, they will add systems that help meta game alliances like this, but never try to directly create the system artificially themselves. Game mechanics should only artificially try to help the small scale, such as forming squads. The rest is up to us, and would be better with less direct intervention by the devs.

I wholly support this idea, if not the sentiment towards the developers that it comes along with.

As the game progresses, hopefully they will be able to add more tools that support what the alliances are already doing, not trying to do what the devs think should be done. Hopefully a lot of these tools will be able to be added before the end of beta.

[The Janitor]

Maybe add the ability to have outfits spend resources to put up missions for the zerg to be able to accept so you can direct them where you want? The more resources spent, the higher the reward for those who accept it so the zerg will want to accept these missions and accept those more often that offer higher rewards, making the masses be directed by the outfits who get things done more often. They might even start to like certain outfits who post large "bounties" for certain missions and follow their direction of their own accord. There's no need to micro manage the zerg, all we need is a way to effectively unleash it in the general direction we'd like stuff to get done in.

[meiam]

The largest problem with player build solution is that the other side doesn't have access to them, so if one empire has a very good leadership structure and the other 2 don't, then that one empire will dominate. Now the real problem with that is it's going to be incredibly boring for that one empire has they'll quickly dominate the server.

Now the largest problem with a formal in game chat to allow for strategic discussion is too balance not letting people who have no idea what there saying with new people that wanna make there mark and be allowed into the leadership structure. For the life of me, I can't think of any solution to that problem, both in game or player run.

[musefrog]

Originally Posted by The Janitor

Maybe add the ability to have outfits spend resources to put up missions for the zerg to be able to accept so you can direct them where you want? The more resources spent, the higher the reward for those who accept it so the zerg will want to accept these missions and accept those more often, making the masses be directed by the outfits who get things done more often. They might even start to like certain outfits who post large "bounties" for certain missions and follow their direction of their own accord. There's no need to micro manage the zerg, all we need is a way to effectively unleash it in the general direction we'd like stuff to get done in.

Brilliant idea!

[ringring]

I support this idea.

I think we need something similar on TR on the new werner server or whatever it or they are called.

I do worry at the thought that there may be an opinion that leadership is the ability to slap down a mission or two, it is obviously more than that.

There is also the probably issue of a conflict in the command level of an empire where conflicting missions are creating. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

[Haro]

Originally Posted by p0intman

The problem in PS1's leadership structure is that even though you could grind up to being a CR5, being a CR5 didn't mean someone was an actual leader and was worth listening to. The number of CR5s worth actually paying mind to, was actually quite small compared to the number of CR5s that spoke on command chat or on comall/comcont.

A common misconception was that all CR5s were bad and were worth ignoring. This is not the case, as many of us actually tried to do what we could for the better of our chosen empire. The problem arises that there exists a group think mentality in any large group of people who are asked to do something that they don't appreciate or care to do, such as re-securing or assaulting a base.

There exists a problem with the notion that players should not have a leadership position over other players in an FPS game as large as planetside, that is really that lemmings will follow lemmings unless given direction.

The development team of PS2 seems intent on eradicating any formal leadership structure for each empire. In spite of this, or even despite of it, I have decided to take initiative to fill this problem with a player made solution. I would like to the developers who read this to keep in mind, that if the player base wants something... it will exist, even if you don't formally support it.

Some, or even a few of you have already seen what I have been working on. A number of you have copies, or access to copies of the idea. For the rest, here is what I envision.

An alliance of outfits is already forming, and I am going to be approaching a few more in the near future. The goal of this alliance is to share information and chat channels ingame to coordinate movements on a massive scale that hasn't been witnessed in years. No one outfit is to lead this alliance, but the tactical decisions of the combined opinion of each outfit's squad leaders and tactical thinkers promises to fill in any gaps in empire leadership that the developers may leave vacant regardless of if it was intentionally or not.

The end goal of establishing this solution is to nullify the effect of the so-called "problem leaders" that do things contrary to the goal of having fun for the rest of the empire. There is no reason that a formal leadership structure cannot work and cannot be done correctly.

The coordination and command level discussions will take place on a secure channel either in-game or out of game. That decision resides with how dynamic and reliable the in-game chat system is. If it turns out to be that we need to use something out of game, it is not beyond the realm of possibility of using shared TS/mumble/vent information to coordinate base assaults, just like is sometimes done in PS1.

It is my hope that the developers will embrace this idea and eventually implement a method for players to functionally lead their empire as was tried in PS1. Comall/Comcont is not something to be feared or even loathed. Instead, how it is used by those who lack a desire to do anything constructive is the only real problem with it. In the end, with a lack of a solid in-game foundation, players will always pick up the slack.

And no, your "mission system" is not adequate.

A lot of good points here, and it's a really worthwhile subject.

I would put forth the argument that although CR5's did have tools for command, I always felt the real structure of empires came from outfits and outfit leaders (who often were Cr5 anyway.) I think the outfit system will only become more central in Planetside, as we already have several strong outfits that have lasted for much of the game's incarnation. I would like to see some controls and tools given to outfit leaders. They actually have a structure they can use, whereas Cr5s outside of guilds are often trying to tell people to do something, but people rarely have any reason to listen to them.

I'd also like to see some command tools put into cert trees for squad leaders or commanders. I wouldn't put anything especially powerful (like some of the CR5 chat levels, or any kind of bolt from the blue) but things like squad level waypoints, drawing, etc. would be nice without having to go through the long cr grind. Of course, these certs would only produce a usable effect if you are a squad leader, so random people can't just use them.

Finally, I could see community managers from SOE having the potential for this, maybe as command moderators. I think one of the worst things of Planetside was that a lot of things were left out of control and improperly moderated. If we do have any larger command structure outside of guilds and squads, it needs to be closely monitored and managed. Not everyone should be a commander, and it's abilities are a privilege, not a right.

Like I said before, though, I think the guild command structure should take a lot from the CR5s and stand as the primary empire structure.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by meiam

The largest problem with player build solution is that the other side doesn't have access to them, so if one empire has a very good leadership structure and the other 2 don't, then that one empire will dominate. Now the real problem with that is it's going to be incredibly boring for that one empire has they'll quickly dominate the server.

Now the largest problem with a formal in game chat to allow for strategic discussion is too balance not letting people who have no idea what there saying with new people that wanna make there mark and be allowed into the leadership structure. For the life of me, I can't think of any solution to that problem, both in game or player run.

If it works and ends up leaving its infancy stage where I actually go out and recruit other outfits to cooperate with us, I actually have friends on other empires to disseminate my document to. To say I and a few others have access to it does not mean it may not eventually be something I just freely give away. Its an idea, and each Empire will probably end up developing something similar on its own if there is no in-game structure available.

Originally Posted by ringring

I support this idea.

I think we need something similar on TR on the new werner server or whatever it or they are called.

I do worry at the thought that there may be an opinion that leadership is the ability to slap down a mission or two, it is obviously more than that.

There is also the probably issue of a conflict in the command level of an empire where conflicting missions are creating. How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

Long term cooperation and sharing of opinion on appropriate methods of tactical advancement breeds trust and the ability for many people to cooperate on a single objective even if not in the same TS channel. It is not something that happens overnight but it is instead something that is created over a long span of time, weeks and months at a time.

[Xyntech]

I'd like to see how customizable the current VOIP system is. We already know we can use it while outside the game, which was a big sticking point with a lot of outfits.

If we can customize it to allow private leadership channels, it will go a long way towards giving the exact kind of support that outfits like this need.

I'm not sure whether or not an official alliance system should be in game though. I feel like that would come with a lot of problems, and that the devs would be better left out of it.

I think more of the tools should be broadly useful tools that just so conveniently happen to work perfectly to facilitate outfits and players who want to be part of a bigger alliance type of operation.

Tools that can be used on smaller or larger scale. Stat and battle plan sharing that can be set to share with individual players, squads or platoons, or entire outfits, both your own and other outfits/squads/platoons.

[Mastachief]

You ... just .... don't.... follow the.... BAD ...... Commanders


Simples!

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Mastachief

You ... just .... don't.... follow the.... BAD ...... Commanders


Simples!

Sometimes people are lemmings.. kind of like this:

Bad commanders aren't easily differentiated from good commanders by new players.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Haro

A lot of good points here, and it's a really worthwhile subject.

I would put forth the argument that although CR5's did have tools for command, I always felt the real structure of empires came from outfits and outfit leaders (who often were Cr5 anyway.)

Absolutely, the pre-existing outfit leaders already have the links with other outfit leaders, all that needs to be done is to semi-formalise those links into an alliance of sorts.

But if alliances form I think they will be semi-formal and by that I mean on some days the alliance will be outfit A and outfit B+C but on other days it will be a different set of outfits. Hopefully the VIOP will facilitate this.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ringring

Absolutely, the pre-existing outfit leaders already have the links with other outfit leaders, all that needs to be done is to semi-formalise those links into an alliance of sorts.

But if alliances form I think they will be semi-formal and by that I mean on some days the alliance will be outfit A and outfit B+C but on other days it will be a different set of outfits. Hopefully the VIOP will facilitate this.

This is why I want it to be informal tools that help the true leaders do this themselves, not a rigid system designed by the developers.

Also, if it's formalized too much, then players will probably be given a ton of fake/bad leaders to choose between in addition to the good ones, and we're right back to the lame CR5 situation.

[Soothsayer]

I thought the story was that an unscrupulous nature documentary film maker was actually rounding up lemmings and chasing them off a cliff then filming it.

It is Disney after all..

I'd like to think that most of the time I'm going to be acting in line with the general best interests of my empire and that if I'm trying to play with a mind to strategy that I'm on the ball.

Command rank five really gave a lot of people the sense that they were justified in taking command whether or not they had the mandate of the people they were giving orders to.

That problem is circumvented by the introduction of the "follow" system that was referred to a couple months back.

Foot soldiers have the option of putting a follow on a couple of different individuals. They could have a follow (twitter style) on their SL, their OL and an empire commander of their choice. As a person gains more and more followers, the greater amount of reach and clout they have with making things happen on the mission system.

So yes, I'd say the mission system is adequate unless the empire commander also wants to give RL personalized marital advice or hot tips on what stocks his/her followers should be buying.

[EDIT: here's my lemmings source if you accept Snopes as an authority http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp]

[Vetto]

I do hope the community some what has control over who in lead and who not cause of what you said.