119 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

I do not seem to have the ability to make polls, for whatever reason, so I thought I would ask this here...

How do you, as a Merc Corps Commander, manage your ranks and positions?

POLL
1) It doesn’t matter, we don’t have a structure (we’re all just MechWarrior’s here), we just play.

2) We have a very minimal structure (Commander, XO, MechWarrior’s), and whomever contributes adds to our unit.

3) We have a moderate structure (Commander, XO, Company Commander’s, Lance Leader’s, MechWarrior’s), and place whomever is willing to do the job, or has shown an aptitude for a job (web site maintainer, forum moderator, Lance Leader, Training Officer, etc.), to the job.

4) We have a fairly decent rank structure (Colonel, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Corporal, etc.), but it’s very loose, like the moderate structure listed, but we’re a bit more careful with our positions; no one gets a job unless they show us they can do it.

5) We have a well-developed rank and positions structure, people needing to prove themselves to get into positions, but it’s mostly loose, a showing for the lore, and we’re just here to have fun; the rest is meh.

6) We have a great rank and positions structure, people need to earn their way into ranks and/or positions, but we’re relatively generous with the requirements. We’re here to play and have fun, but we also want some modicum of organization and respect, and earning rank and/or positions is a great way to display that.

7) The “real-world” military looks to us for organization, it’s not just about a showing for the lore, we take this pretty seriously.

BODY
I’m writing this out of curiosity of how other unit Commander’s feel it’s best to run their merc unit. How do you think, from anything you’ve read so far, that Community Warfare, Phase One, for Merc Corps’, will stack up to how you do business? Also, how do you think CW is going to make you change the way you do business?

Please keep it civil, this is just a discussion? Thank you <S>.

If I could ask a moderator to edit this post and turn it into a poll, please, I would be grateful. Thank you.

[Holleywood]

I say a mixture of 3, 4, and 5

[Vas79]

I would say we're in the 4-6 range.

[Threat Doc]

Yeah, I wish I would have been able to post this is a poll. It's not really meant to be a range, but subtle increasing variations, to give a solid number, or some manner of other explanation.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 21 October 2013 - 07:33 PM.

[Vas79]

If your looking for a hard number it would be a six.

[Durant Carlyle]

I am not a unit commander. However, if I was, I would make my unit a mix of 6 and 7.

Recruits would be placed into the lance/company/battalion/regiment structure based on primary play times and gaming personality (casual/hardcore). There would be easy to understand organization charts listing where each member fits into the overall unit. Everyone would have a rank, all the way from Recruit to General. Certain ranks would be set for lance command, company command, battalion command, and so on. There would be checks and balances to make sure people with power weren't abusing it. A certain paint scheme would be required, so that 1. we could look around and see our buddies all wearing the same uniform and get a confidence boost, 2. our adversaries would be able to easily recognize us on the battlefield, and 3. I could make sure that the members of my unit cared enough about the game to buy at least one of the smaller MC packages to get the pattern/colors.

And what I've seen of the Community Warfare stuff wouldn't change a thing. It would actually be an official in-game reinforcement of the rank structure I would already be using.

[Threat Doc]

I guess another question would be, and I didn't think of this until just now, but what would you like to see in the Merc Corps Interface reportedly coming with CW?

Durant Carlyle, on 21 October 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

I am not a unit commander. However, if I was, I would make my unit a mix of 6 and 7.

You sound like you should be one, though. Believe you-me when I tell you that I understand why you wouldn't want to be.

Quote

There would be checks and balances to make sure people with power weren't abusing it.

What would these checks and balances look like to you?

Quote

And what I've seen of the Community Warfare stuff wouldn't change a thing. It would actually be an official in-game reinforcement of the rank structure I would already be using.

Everything you addressed in your post, here, is inspiring to me.

For my part, I would place my own desire for running Armageddon Unlimited precisely where you put it, Durant, most likely a low to mid 6.

I am definitely looking forward to reading answers to the first question I posed in this post. I definitely want to hear from more folks, too.

[Durant Carlyle]

Kay Wolf, on 21 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Durant Carlyle, on 21 October 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

I am not a unit commander. However, if I was, I would make my unit a mix of 6 and 7.

You sound like you should be one, though. Believe you-me when I tell you that I understand why you wouldn't want to be.

I do want to be a unit commander. I want to test my mettle against other units on the battlefield, as well as against the internal politicking and strife that accompanies the attempt to keep a group of disparate individuals working and playing well together. I think I'd be good at it.

Kay Wolf, on 21 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Durant Carlyle, on 21 October 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

There would be checks and balances to make sure people with power weren't abusing it.

What would these checks and balances look like to you?

It wouldn't be anything in-game. Probably some sort of complaint form on the unit website and then me going around and polling people, asking questions of the lower ranks as well as the higher ones to see if there might be something going on. I would definitely let it be known to everyone that they could speak to me or PM me or E-mail me and I would keep things confidential until I determined whether or not action had to be taken. Once the determination's been made I would step on the offender hard, including demotions and even kicking them out of the unit and banning them from the voice server. I would announce the offender, the results, and the general reason why on the unit forums so everyone is clear on the situation and a minimum of rumormongering goes on.

Kay Wolf, on 21 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Everything you addressed in your post, here, is inspiring to me.

Thanks, but some of this stuff I got from being a member of Death's Hand Brigade and the Robinson Ranger Brigade (not at the same time, of course). I cherry-picked what I thought they did best and added it to my own thoughts about what a mercenary unit should be.

Kay Wolf, on 21 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

I guess another question would be, and I didn't think of this until just now, but what would you like to see in the Merc Corps Interface reportedly coming with CW?

I just re-read the official thread on Association just to remind myself what exactly they would be including (subject to change, of course).

They already have all of the stuff I would want as far as organization goes:
Unit name
Unit tag
Unit decal chosen from a list
Unit description
Rank name/hierarchy/privilege customization
Assigning nicknames to lances/companies/battalions/regiments to give them individual identities within the unit
Assigning members to lances/companies/battalions/regiments based on whatever criteria the leadership chooses
Assigning ranks to members, and the ability to promote/demote them

About the only thing I would like is the ability to submit a custom decal for the unit. But that would entail a lot of overhead on their end -- coming up with specific guidelines for what can and cannot be in a logo, dedicated staff to approve/deny submissions, and so on. If they can't do that, I would at least like to see something like EVE Online's corp logo selector. You can create thousands of different logos by playing with that customizer.

[Durant Carlyle]

Nobody else wants to help out with a comment or two here? Answer some of the questions?

I, too, am curious about this.

[Marek Tesla]

Just a short answer to the poll: In cReddit Myrmidon we are at 3 with a hint of 4 at the moment. We have titles for people on certain positions like XO and LL but no military ranks in between. Only those apt for the position gets it though. This fits our playstyle at the moment, but might change once we get into CW.

[Grendel408]

Definitely a mixture between the 3-4... I'm keeping it structured as it should be for lance/company/battalion setup... Enjin has a nice setup to create tags and modules to modify to create a nice rank structure like what I've done with my unit Ultimately, my MW Class ranks are based off of skill, while Officer positions are filled out due to experience, knowledge, capability to lead, and general skill as a pilot... we're kind of a laid back unit, so I don't stress activity, but we all use Steam so it's pretty easy to see who's online and group up so we usually have a couple small groups running each night... no 12mans yet.

[3rdworld]

1.

No ranks or organization. Just put the match on the schedule, people show up. We have a leader, but his only job is to BS with other unit leaders and schedule the matches. Any decision that effects the unit is a democratic vote.

There is a write up from Mercstar, you may find interesting.

http://mercenarystar...e-units-part-1/

[Ehose Shadow]

My Unit:The Dreadnought Merc Corp has a mix of Number 1 and Number 2. We only have 3 Ranks, The "Officers"(Council) the main 5 that founded the Unit, that define most of our goals and direction (we take input from out members when we make these decisions.) Mercenary, which is what everyone else is and Recruits (new people under trial conditions.) Lance commanders for us is just adding a Lance commander tag on our site and having you control 4 others in a match, Can be either Officer or Mercenary.

We have found this works for us.

[Shamous13]

I'm part of Night Watch, I would say were somewhere between 2 & 3 This is a quote from our recruitment thread.

Khavi Vetali, on 22 July 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

Structure - Our command structure is unlike any other unit out there. We do not believe that the only good ideas come from the highest ranks. We do not believe a ranking system determines a player’s value. Our Charter system provides each player with the ability to choose to play how they want with who they want. Charters can have different goals intended for different styles, from competitive to casual. Don’t see the one that suits you? Command your own.

Access - There is no “low man on the totem pole.” All Watchmen are peers and equals. Ranks or Titles only denote an individual’s responsibilities or duties, not authority. We believe in leadership, not dictatorship. Forge your own way, make friends, and take them along. No one has the right to curb your enjoyment, regardless of “rank.”

Edited by Shamous13, 23 October 2013 - 09:21 AM.

[Threat Doc]

It's really good to see all of these various styles and, frankly, if it works for your people, they're all great. I tend to take a more serious view than most about how organization in my unit should be, and I believe those people who decide to commit themselves to earning ranks or positions will have more pride and onus to the unit than those who don't. However, I also know this is only going to attract those who prefer that sort of environment.

By providing many levels of environment, we as a community are actually providing a safe place for anyone who comes in.

I wonder if it wouldn't be constructive to better flesh out the scale I have in the OP, and then have a sort of unit registry to help folks determine whom they would like to apply to. Would PGI set something up in the Merc Corps UI that allows people something like this, an at-a-glance look, a single page listing of all available units, so people have an easier choice to make?

(rubs chin) Hmmm...

Okay, I definitely want to hear more, now... we have a couple of relatively hardcore units and a couple of relatively casual units, so lets see if there are folks more in the middle?

[CyclonerM]

As far as i know, we should add a whole bunch of Clan units to the hardcore units with a structured organization and chain of command, not forgetting one of the most important things IMO, a good RP component.

[Shamous13]

The way we have set things up allow hard core groups and casual groups to play within the same unit, Every 6 months we Hold board elections and then a CEO election, this avoids burnout and ensures every one has a voice with what happens.

I should have put this in my original post

Edited by Shamous13, 23 October 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

He wasn't referring to the play style, Shamous. He was referring to the organization style -- hardcore organized like myself and Kay versus casual organization like yours and Ehose's.

Like I said in my first post, my unit would be organized by play time and play style (casual/hardcore). It would still have "hardcore" organization though.

And rank shouldn't be equated with value. An officer's idea isn't automatically better than a recruit's idea. Instead, rank should be equated with responsibility. Not all people see it that way though.

[Shamous13]

I understand what he was saying but maybe I wasn't clear enough. We have a corporate setup for the main unit but within our unit we have a charter system, Some of these charters have a hardcore structure and some don't.

My question would be how do you rate a completely different structure, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Edit: I do think that something could be done to help people figure out where their best fit would be, It would reduce player turnover within units and increase player retention for MWO

Edited by Shamous13, 23 October 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 23 October 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Like I said in my first post, my unit would be organized by play time and play style (casual/hardcore). It would still have "hardcore" organization though.

Okay, but how would YOU do this?

I tried putting it in my unit's application, but recently removed it, for people to lay down their time-zones, most likely hours they would be able to play, and whether they were casual, moderate, or hardcore, so I could attempt to classify folks for better play, so they would be more apt to play with those who were their friends, or at least in their same zones and play-styles. The experiment failed when the unit did. However, from all of the data I collected from the 76 people I had in the unit, aside myself, it was really difficult to determine who would be best where. I simply found I didn't have the time, and my C&S back then were not backing me up well enough, to get that done.

Quote

And rank shouldn't be equated with value. An officer's idea isn't automatically better than a recruit's idea. Instead, rank should be equated with responsibility. Not all people see it that way though.

This is something I agree with completely. It should also be a sign of respect for someone who's earned that rank and/or position, though perhaps not in any unit outside my own, where I have people earn it, not just get it because they're shiny. One of my former Lance Leaders told me that my order, in one game, was a bad idea, because we would be outcapped before we reached the enemy base to begin capping, so we went instead to clean out the bad guys. I had no problem having a lower-ranked player make that call, because in the simplest terms, he was right and I was wrong.

Shamous13, on 23 October 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

I understand what he was saying but maybe I wasn't clear enough. We have a corporate setup for the main unit but within our unit we have a charter system, Some of these charters have a hardcore structure and some don't.

My question would be how do you rate a completely different structure, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Well, that's actually why I put the one in there. EVERY SINGLE UNIT has a structure, period. You cannot have a culture or sub-culture without structure. Even the Anarchist's have a structure. The point is, you very aptly pinpointed where your unit was, and that basically fits into the #1 option in the OP; you're good to go.