Squad Leader mechanics - Major Concern!

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Cordless

The two problems I see with all these suggestions are how you would explain to a computer who is leading a squad (what does that even mean?) and then whether or not they are doing a good job (what does THAT mean?).
The whole command points as a resource thing sounds neat though but you still run into the same question. Remember to the server we're all numbers with numbers as attributes.

The same way they did it in PS1. The issue wasn't that the system wrongfully awarded CEP, the issue was that everyone got it eventually because once you got the command rank, it stuck with you.

I'm assuming squad will have leaders: the person who forms the squad. A good squad leader will be leading a squad that is taking objectives and performing actions that support the faction: kills, captures, support, etc. The better a leader can manage his squad/platoon, the more CEP he'll get.

I kinda like the resource idea too. The only issue I see is giving the only global command tool (chat) over to anyone who may have a certain rank that they can never lose.

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

If we manage to play this game for ten years then I think you deserve all the command certs and bennies ps2 has to offer. And still it wont necessarily make you a great leader. This sort of thing "leadership" isnt a skill you buy in a store. The good leaders will gain the respect of his soldiers and his soldiers will make sure that great leader is out front leading. I guess it boils down to a great leader doesnt really need a cert to do what he does. And a cert doesnt make a good leader.

I would disagree. Someone who doesn't think tactically and doesn't have the ability to lead has no place as a commander. The fact is that people will follow someone who is a "commander", whether they're good or not, just because the game says so. If it was all about intuition determining a good commander, we wouldn't mess with the command system in the first place.

[windlord]

Perhaps it should be vote based?

[disky]

Originally Posted by xnorb

That's the whole issue with levelup bonus and unlocks.
It's only a matter of time and skill isn't calculated in.

There needs to be a voting mechanism which lets us identify good leaders
and bad leaders. For the start it maybe would be good to give players with
more than 100 hours PS1 experience a mark as "experienced leader" and
all others need to work for that reputation.

What happens when a good leader makes a good strategic decision but the plan fails because the enemy just fought harder, or had the right combination of units and positioning to defeat the force, or the people following his orders made a mistake? Sometimes plans go wrong even when they're good plans, and a commander bears responsibility for it, but that doesn't mean they're a bad commander. The only way it can be determined that truly bad decisions were made is through investigation, and if you plan to be the arbiter of every investigation of every failed mission in PS2, then you're welcome to the job.

The most effective missions will likely be determined by player judgement and the committee decision of all commanders on the continent, and if a commander consistently makes bad decisions, they will develop a reputation for making bad decisions.

[Cordless]

I like the democratic leader idea. Just being a squad leader won't get you any points since it actually takes the effort of another playing hitting the upvote commander button. That way time won't matter, you would have to actually be somewhat useful.

Snap, reddit infects PS2?!

[The Kush]

The current system is fine. You pick which leaders you want to listen to. I didn't listen to any CR5 in PS1. You usually listen to your outfit leader the most.

[Kezz]

Originally Posted by mintyc

i am worryed about this to.

+1

one way they could deal with this is to have CEP(or whatever they want to call it) that only squadleaders get, be an actual resource that is spent on useing command abilitys. so every tom dick and harry may have all the command certs but only those who lead sucsessfull squads can use the more powerfull abilitys as they are the only ones that have significant ammount of the correct resource.

This is a really cool idea. I think, in the PS2 model, the awarding of CEPs could also be tied to the successful completion of missions that the commander has assigned. A completed mission would reward the task setter with twice as many points as it cost to set, so that a 50% completion ratio (I'm assuming there's a time limit) would allow the commander to maintain their activity.

Originally Posted by Cordless

...how you would explain to a computer who is leading a squad...

It's defined as the person who hit the "Create Squad" button. Simples.

...whether or not they are doing a good job...

At the moment in PS1, AIUI, the squad leader gets CR based on the XP the members of the squad earn for kills, proximity to captures, support activity etc. I expect they'll extend this concept. With the PS2 model, there will have to be some additional mechanic for determining the success of missions set by commanders, which will, I'd guess all be along the lines of "Capture this base" or "Defend this control point for x minutes". Things which can be fairly readily measured. Quite how this all fits together will be hard to say until we see the mission generating system in action.

[Ukrai]

Originally Posted by disky

The most effective missions will likely be determined by player judgement and the committee decision of all commanders on the continent, and if a commander consistently makes bad decisions, they will develop a reputation for making bad decisions.

When we have 50 people online throwing out orders, im not sure i will be able to keep up with who is a good and bad commander. I may remember 2 or 3 really good ones but when they're not online, ill be reduced to sending my squad out to follow some random person's orders and cross my fingers.

At least in PS1 i knew the orders were coming from people who had a LOT of experience in leading squads themselves.

Voting would be fantastic but probably quite difficult to implement, especially this close to going into beta.

My opinion of the best way to handle this would be to restrict each level of the SL certs. eg. first one can only be bought if you have led 10 successful facility captures as a squad leader, 2nd requires 50 etc. Its simple and should do the trick. I also like the idea of these certs degrading over time if not used.

[The Kush]

I'm not trying to be in a high school popularity contest.

In all seriousness pick the leaders you want to follow. If someone wants to be a leader let them, stop trying to limit players choices. The devs won't agree with any of the ideas you guys just put forth. If the guy sucks as a leader no one will join his squad. Simple as that.

/thread closed

[Spiritbeast]

ban everyone named tom!!!

that's pretty much all i have til i see the certs and mission system ; P

[Kezz]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

...issue I see is giving the only global command tool (chat) over to anyone who may have a certain rank that they can never lose...

What if it only ever got opened to the top [Insert arbitrary number here] command scores? Then if your outfit leader comes on and wants to boss the major fight, he has to get down in the weeds like the rest of us dogfaces and cap some bases/geek some Barneys/Smurfs/valiant TR troops to push his command rank (or whatever they call it) up. Actually, an Outfit/Company/Platoon/Squad leader ought to (I believe will) have authority to set missions for their subordinates, so your Outfit chief would just need to get you doing the capping/geeking for him until he catches the current lowest "eligible commander" in CR. Whether that commander would then be barred from /global again, or just not allowed back in the next day (unless he's one of the select highest when he logs in), would need to be determined.

But overall, I really think the ability to tell other people what they should be doing should emphatically not be open to anyone without them actually (successfully) doing the leading. Hell, I'd be in favour of a multi-choice test for people who want to buy the initial "Can create a publicly listed squad" cert. The highest ranked CRs could add questions to the pool (and earn CEP for doing so and reviewing other questions) so no one could just spoiler all the answers.

[Ukrai]

Originally Posted by The Kush

I'm not trying to be in a high school popularity contest.

In all seriousness pick the leaders you want to follow. If someone wants to be a leader let them, stop trying to limit players choices. The devs won't agree with any of the ideas you guys just put forth. If the guy sucks as a leader no one will join his squad. Simple as that.

/thread closed

Im not talking about joining squads, this is about the people who will be giving the high level orders/missions to those squads and people who will have the ability to broadcast chat to the entire faction and, possibley, do orbital air strikes, people with this power should have to earn it.

[Rivenshield]

There are no orbital strikes in PS2. Any and all of the worries expressed in this thread can be dealt with via one simple command:

/ignore

[Kran De Loy]

They've already got stats tracking for all kinds of crazy stuff so why not have one for leadership role crap, too?

I'm all for finding a way to tell the difference between the wheat and the chafe, but I agree that I can only be done on an individual basis using each player's own judgement of who to follow.

Btw: Who to not follow could be pretty specific at times, but generally there will always be far too many people to remember to not follow for any one person to keep track of.

Everyone's best bet is to pick some people that do things in ways that you can go along with and generally keep an eye out for them. After a while that commander's followers will generally get an idea on how the preferred commander operates so that the followers will at least have an idea of who to pick as a temporary replacement.

[TheApoc]

I hope the mission system will have a way to maybe see how the person giving out the missions is viewed by history or stats or reviews

[Kran De Loy]

Also differentiating between the 'good' commanders and the bad ones isn't enough. Every person does things in a different way usually so finding a commander that gives commands that complement how you prefer to get objectives done is also important. That's the reasoning I use for why picking who to follow should be an individual's choice and not some game mechanic.