Squad Leader mechanics - Major Concern! - Page 3

ringring · 2012-07-04, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by Xaine

People can choose which commanders to follow, and select missions.

If a mission is to attack something retarded, people won't do it.

You'll get rated as a Commander by how often your missions are completed, i believe.

So Tom won't do very well.

Missions, missions, missions again.

Outfits will abuse this in the same way command rank got abused.
In PS1 -> squad chat, who wants cep ....--> promote thatguy
In PS2 -> squad chat, lets go and attack point a ---> ok, hang on while I create a mission for it.

Karrade · 2012-07-04, 05:29 AM

Rank should be gained and lost based on the success ratio of that commander. Failing that as someone suggested, every commanders stat ratio for successful missions should be visible.

People will pick winnable missions, and clever missions will be rewarded with higher bonuses, attacking a strong enemy target over a soft spot discouraged for instance - just like a real war. Flanking will be rewarded, getting in behind the main enemy force etc. This would make the battlefield more dynamic, and less clustered up.

Originally Posted by ringring

Missions, missions, missions again.

In PS2 -> squad chat, lets go and attack point a ---> ok, hang on while I create a mission for it.

Sounds like good organisation to me, teamwork, that would be a successful person to have in CR position.

Originally Posted by 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

Will this ignore mission objectives set by that individual, if they are repeatedly ridiculous. That is a nice idea if it does, a way to filter out certain people from the mission screen.

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

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.

This, i'd always pass the squad over when I realised I got the SL position. I think like a grunt, deal with threats and call them out when I see them, not a SL most of the time though I can run it, certainly not a commander, but eventually you gain CR just by being passed the squad. Eventually in PS2 I will be able to make missions just by playtime, which I probably will if I really see an opportunity begging to be hit.

It'd be nice as i've said, if rank was gained/lost based on the success of my missions created. The too many commanders syndrome will be there, as you'll have too many missions

, unless they have a way of restricting them. I am back to the task force idea again, some organisation for who is doing what where.

Also who will be making these missions at the start of the game? We'll have no commanders to give orders heh.

Eggy · 2012-07-04, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Karrade

Also who will be making these missions at the start of the game? We'll have no commanders to give orders heh.

This is the time when the best leaders will make there mark. Those people that organise the outfits to work together and use the global chat channels and out of game resources to help the teamplay. These are the chaps and chapettes you want leading your squads and getting those squad leaders certs. So they can do there job easier.

The people who treat the command chat like 4chan, just repeat whats allready been said but in caps and pretty colours, spam "attack cont x" every 5 mins. These are the people you put on ignore, dont pay any attention to and dont join there squads. There were too many tards who had CR from doing absolutely nothing towards earning it and only wanted it to fire lazers from the sky.

Gimpylung · 2012-07-04, 08:39 AM

Maybe someone with more insight into PS2's command mechanics will disagree with me but...

The impression I get from all I've seen to date is that PS2 is being designed around the zerg. The hex system facilitates attacking the next nearest most obvious target, thats what the zerg does.

There will be a clear and distinct front line with a few obvious attack or defend locations on that front line. The zerg will invariably be at these locations with out having been told by a mission or a commander that they need to be there.

So even if there are no active commanders assigning targets I think the outcomes of any major conflicts will largely be the same as if there were a bunch of commanders because the obvious targets are going to be where the fight is anyways.

Sure, there will be a few coordinated outfits hitting harder to win hexes behind the lines, but these guys are likely to be coordinating on VOIP and will only be assigning a mission on their target coz they might as well in order to get a bit of extra XP but they aren't going to need the mission parameters to guide them.

It's a shame that command has been simplified like this but I can understand the devs problem and their solution. Instead of empowering frustrated commanders to be able to direct the zerg more effectively than in PS1, they've designed the game around the zerg, so that wherever the zerg is, is where they should be if you follow.

As a consequence of this command mechanic, I reckon the mission system is little more than the illusion of player control and an obvious way of distributing XP.

Your thoughts...

Memeotis · 2012-07-04, 09:41 AM

How about when a Commander wants to speak outside of a Squad, Platoon or Outfit they have to ask for permission. I remember in CoD2 a small textbox would appear 'Would you like to kick Player X' F1: Yes F2: No. I think something similar could be done with PS2.

Then, you would make it such that only once a Commander has reached CR3, he can begin requesting permission to speak on "public" channels. At this point, he will get leader points the traditional way; whenever he's speaking within a public channel and his faction succeeds. (If some people mute him on the other hand, he won't get points for those individuals.)

CR3: Can only request permission to speak within smaller hexes.

CR4: Can request permission to speak within any hex.

CR5: Can request permission to speak across the entire continent.

This system, since players can remove themselves from the Commander's point-payroll by muting him, will keep poor leaders from advancing to the top without having ever used their microphone. This way, your faction will also get used to the leader gradually, and only if the faction likes the Commander, his rank will increase. On the other hand, if they don't like him, it won't take more than one bad experience with the Commander for them to vote 'F2: No' next time they seem him requesting permission to speak.

This system would also require that once CR3 has been reached, the Commander can no longer get points within squads, platoons and outfits. Only when he is permitted to speak within public channels will he be able to get leader points.

i see you naked · 2012-07-04, 10:01 AM

YEAH GIVE CR5 system back where ******* from the own outfit dont pass squad lead because they are selfish assholes who are already CR5 but dont care because they are the boss

MCYRook · 2012-07-04, 10:11 AM

The whole thing is a non-issue IMO, in that it's no worse than PS1.

Idiots will be idiots, and bad leaders will be bad. You had plenty of both in PS1. Yeah it took some dedication to reach CR5 (at least back in the day, nowadays CEP gain is so huge it's a joke), but after a few years, there were already too many of them. The other night, NC had 192(!) CR5s online.

And getting CR5 in PS1 had nothing - NOTHING! - to do with leadership ability. You fill your squad with as many people as possible and have them all be around when your empire caps a base. That's all there was to it.

PS2 isn't a whole lot different, except it does away with the need to be in the SL position to gain CR. That means everyone who desires to do so can put ranks in Command. But in the end, it's still sacrificing battle abilities to gain command abilities (in PS1, other people would get additional BEP while the SL got CEP). And just like PS1, eventually everyone will be "CR5".

Note that I don't think this approach is much better than PS1. But it certainly isn't worse. And yes, you will still need to figure out on your own which commander is worth listening to and following and which isn't.

Ukrai · 2012-07-04, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Karrade

Rank should be gained and lost based on the success ratio of that commander. Failing that as someone suggested, every commanders stat ratio for successful missions should be visible.

This would work i reckon and a simple addition to the game, if squad leaders could see how successful a commander was in the past, they could determine which is best to follow. And successful missions should determine the ability to go up in the SL certs.

i think you're on a winner there!

QuantumMechanic · 2012-07-04, 09:10 PM

I respectfully but seriously disagree with the OP.

In Planetside1 getting CR5 means that you have spent lots and lots of time in the game grinding command exp. It doesn't mean that you are a good leader or have even picked up leadership skills or any strategic or tactical skills.

Once you have CR5 there is no reason to lead squads anymore, the command exp is useless to you. Most people get CR5 because it is "their turn" in their outfit to lead squads. And the guy leading the squad is almost always not in charge, he is just "leading" to get command exp while a higher ranking outfit member is calling the shots and doing the real leading.

So I don't think the command system in PS1 is a particularly good one. Most people only pursue CR5 to get the orbital strike ability anyway.

We don't know how it's going to work in PS2 other than you can just get certs in the command tree. But even if anybody can do that, I don't see the system being *that* much worse than the command system that PS1 has.

Soothsayer · 2012-07-04, 09:39 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a bold statement...

The term "CEP" has never been used by a developer in relation to an ingame system that is planned for PS2.

What has been mentioned is a commander "follow" system where you get three votes for three people to have access to higher level command abilities. This was months ago and not a lot has been said since.

These empire commanders would be able to create missions for their outfit and for the empire at the top level.

Other command abilities were said to be within the certification system and unlockable by any who chose to specialize down that path. Orbital strikes are being considered, but were being talked about as being more artillery based as opposed to a space cannon.

CEP doesn't exist in PS2.

SystematicKillr · 2012-07-04, 09:44 PM

You guys probably haven't seen this but:

http://www.hamma.ws/ntemp/Infantry/CommandRank.jpg

from Neuro's certification report from E3

here is a picture of a different certification:

http://www.hamma.ws/ntemp/Infantry/E...r/EnginACE.jpg

As you can see the amount of cert points needed for command rank is WAY more than anything else like 3 times more its subject to change but generally will still take tons of work

the thread if you want to investigate other trees:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=42395

Special thanks to Neuro and Hamma for the trees

kadrin · 2012-07-04, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by SystematicKillr

You guys probably haven't seen this but:

http://www.hamma.ws/ntemp/Infantry/CommandRank.jpg

from Neuro's certification report from E3

If I read that correctly, CR5 is only 480 certs total.

Oh well, as long as /sitrep is still in so I can relay information.

Soothsayer · 2012-07-04, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by kadrin

If I read that correctly, CR5 is only 480 certs total.

Oh well, as long as /sitrep is still in so I can relay information.

So it's also been said that 10 minutes of normal xp gain will be one cert point.

So there ya go!

Ratstomper · 2012-07-04, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by 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

Sure about that? I distinctly remember a portion of the higby/hamma interview discussing what OSes will be in PS2. They DO plan on having OSes in PS2, they'll just be equippable and empire specific.

PhoenixDog · 2012-07-05, 12:09 AM

I'm mostly worried about a voting system put in place over anything else. Say "Jerry" is a well voted commander of the VS. He's led some good operations and lots of people like him as a Global Commander. But "Shawn" is a new up-and-coming commander. He tries his hand at leading some squads here and there and does a pretty good job himself. However, Jerry doesn't like that Shawn is doing as good of a job he is, and global's that everyone down-rate Shawn because of this-and-that (Made up bullshit). Because of Jerry's legions of followers, Shawn is down rated as a commander dispite his record, and is next to impossible for him to lead again.

I can see a popularity contest with this system. The "best" commanders are just the ones with the most friends...Say the biggest outfit. He might not be the "best" commander though...And is known to make stupid decisions (Which you see a lot in PS1, old days and now). People follow the dipshit commander because "oh man, he must be cool" despite other commanders working hard below him to accomplish important objectives.