119 replies to this topic

[Durant Carlyle]

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Durant Carlyle, on 24 October 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Yes and no. The best bet is to initially let the unit form itself organically. Players will naturally avoid those they can't get along with and gravitate towards those they mesh well with. Once you have a good core group in each time block, it becomes easier. You put them on the organization chart, so everyone can tell where they are and what positions are open.

You bring new recruits into a training battalion and let them drop at their normal times. During that preliminary period, they will play with a bunch of core players and determine who they are most compatible with. When they are ready (after a minimum amount of time you set, of course), they fill out a transfer request which lists the unit they want to transfer to and why. Once this is received, talk with the lance and company commanders of the unit the recruit wants to transfer to and make sure they're good with it. If so, do the transfer and the recruit becomes an official member of the unit. At that point, the lance and company commanders take over responsibility for the recruit's training and such.

So, to summarize, you're saying that, after the initial hire and training -for AU it's an assessment to determine if any training is needed and, if yes, they move along to training-, members are then responsible for themselves, for their placement? Would you make available units of varying time-zones and unit types... ohhhh... hmmmm... okay, the juices are boiling over, again... thank you. Aren't you worried, however, that players will decide to go nowhere, will have no ambition to be assigned, at all, and how would you remedy that?

The training battalion I referred to isn't really for training. Perhaps I should have labeled it an "intake battalion" instead. Recruits would stay in that battalion until they choose a lance/company that they wanted to join. The lance/company commander still has to approve it. The other option would be to have a lance/company commander choose the recruits they want in their unit. I'd rather have the recruit decide, because they might feel pressured if the lance/company commander that requests them isn't the one they would have chosen.

As far as the "no ambition," a.k.a. true casual players ... the commander has to decide whether or not he wants them in the unit at all. If they are allowed in, it's probably better to have them in a separate non-structured unit than the ones who do want the milsim structure. If I allowed them in, I would label them with a "casual" tag on voice and forums -- and have their participation in official drops be at the discretion of the company commanders, using them as backups if no one else is available. It's also possible that I would set a maximum amount of time in Recruit status -- if they don't choose and don't get chosen, they get kicked. I haven't yet decided for sure.

I don't think it would be too much of a problem though. Most people interested in becoming a mercenary want to belong enough that moving beyond recruit status is a certainty.

[Varent]

Definetly 6.

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 24 October 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

The training battalion I referred to isn't really for training.

Y'know, sometime back, during one of the five Command & Staff meetings we held... actually, I think it was a couple... my XO and Training OIC said that we should have a reserve unit, for those who weren't really ready to commit to a hardcore brand of game-play. I didn't listen to them, because I felt that everyone would want a home; I was wrong. You just backed up what they said I should have done.

For my part, I think I would have MechWarrior's come into, like you said, something of an Intake Battalion, where the Training OIC/NCOIC gets to select MechWarrior's to come into the unit, but it would be a combination of Intake, Assessment, and Training, and the TOIC would be required to encourage all MechWarrior's coming through to put in for a unit from a list they could choose from based on type of unit (Recon, Command, Assault/Defense, MWOs roles, further set into types of Lances), time-zones and/or play hours. I've already made it so MechWarrior's are responsible for how they do in their career -work in = reward out-, so why not go a step further and list jobs in our Employment forum, and/or set up a page so they can choose, and then have them select their own unit, and whether they want to be a Lance member or a reservist for that Lance. They wouldn't actually be tied to the Lance, but they would be available for fillers, as you suggested.

Okay, see, now I'm trying to figure out things with this information, hehe.

For everyone here, but in particular for you, Durant, may I use some of this information, please? Many of the things you've said here make a whole lot of sense, and would make operations run so much more smoothly.

[Dreden Aelnir]

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

How do you quash the drama, then?

See, I already know one part I need to get rid of, and that's participating in controversial threads; I'm learning that a unit commander cannot be as free as your average Private when participating with their 'friends' at a higher level of organization.

So, do you deal with things in a sort of passive, don't step on toes way, or do you get down to the nitty gritty and get in someone's face if they're acting like a {Dezgra}?

As for helping you fill things out in the Ebonheart Dragoons, I'm afraid I still haven't made a decision whether I'm going to boot up AU again, or not, yet. Part of the reason is I'm on hard times, and it's going to run some money to get a unit started up. Most of it, however, has to do with making sure the next time I run AU, if that happens, I'm being appropriately tough but fair.

I've been in the military 9 years (both combat arms and mi), have upper management experience in the private sector and a background in psychology and from that experience I can tell you there is no one true way to deal with problems as every person and every problem is different. If it requires a firm hand a firm hand is given, if it requires a bit more diplomacy then so be it. Either way it saps the unit/clan/guild/corp ability to function and must be dealt with immediately. Letting it fester in the hopes that it will go away is not my style.

[Shamous13]

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

See, I ALWAYS think about a mercenary unit from a military standpoint, with ranks and positions, rather than as a corporation. Merc units ARE corporations, though, founded like businesses. Man, Shamous, it sounds like Night Watch is amazingly well thought-out, and not as organization-light as I thought. Amazing work.

I really like how you separated desk jockey's from MechWarrior leaders, while maintaining that a desk jockey can still be the Watch Captain, as long as they appoint someone to run operations in-game. Perhaps it's time for me to look into attempting to incorporate the corporation side with the fighting unit for the better whole.

When we started our unit we wanted to do things differently we were thinking of it more like a corporation. By doing this people feel more like its their baby and put more effort in. I think the way we have set it up will help us reduce burn out and keep the drama to a minimum, If you don't want to join a charter you don't have too you can be a casual member.The Desk jockey positions are volunteers/elected positions, and we have been doing elections every 6 months. mind you you have to be in good standing to apply for the job and or vote.

By all means use any thing I have posted to help you out.

[Grendel408]

This thread is truly sound advice for anyone looking to smooth out their unit and reform it to something more of their own ideal... learn from others I say! Best of luck to all units posted here, and many others

[Threat Doc]

Shamous13, on 24 October 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

By all means use any thing I have posted to help you out.

Thank you, I'm grateful. What you have, it sounds like a fantastic system. I need to make folks more responsible for what they do, and how they do things, in AU, but not to the point where they feel like it's more of a job than something fun to do, a hobby. The biggest word of advice I've heard, thus far, is that you have to pick the right people; this is something I really need to work on, but I think I have a start.

Dreden Aelnir, on 24 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

I've been in the military 9 years (both combat arms and mi), have upper management experience in the private sector and a background in psychology and from that experience I can tell you there is no one true way to deal with problems as every person and every problem is different. If it requires a firm hand a firm hand is given, if it requires a bit more diplomacy then so be it. Either way it saps the unit/clan/guild/corp ability to function and must be dealt with immediately. Letting it fester in the hopes that it will go away is not my style.

If I had your real-world experience, and you had a feather, we'd both be tickled. See, even though I've been in management and supervisory positions all my life, I still don't have that experience to just know what to do, and that's been a hindrance, despite how long I've been running my mercs.

I figured it out the other day, that my total actual work-time running AU, since 1997, has been 6.6 years, and in all of that time, even during this latest iteration, where I was able to play far more than I've ever been able to do, some ten-plus hours per week, I've always had to learn something new to move on appropriately. I think I will always be learning.

Grendel408, on 24 October 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

This thread is truly sound advice for anyone looking to smooth out their unit and reform it to something more of their own ideal... learn from others I say! Best of luck to all units posted here, and many others

Do you know what my real goal was? I wanted to get the attention of one or more of the moderators and, perhaps, have them recommend this thread to PGI, and hopefully we could get the Merc Corps interface to have more of what we wanted in there. Y'know what's funny? Not only are there some amazing ideas in this thread, but I am being schooled, hehe. This is the type of schooling I don't mind, though, because I believe all of you who have contributed are helping me to make things better, in case I start up AU, again.

Isn't it funny how life works, sometimes.

[Grendel408]

All in all, Kay... running an MMO unit (regardless of game) is a job, but making it fun like a hobby is key. I can't tell you the amount of {Scrap} I went through in games like AstroEmpires, running a guild with 250+ people and having the right people is tough... sometimes incentive needs to be made for those to steer folks in the right direction. So far, that's come down to me paying for the site/voice service for my unit, and developing a workable rank structure and merit system. Eventually... I may end up putting some cold hard cash into prizes and such for my team like embroidered hats and tshirts and stuff. I do like some of the ideas the Devs have for operating a merc-corps, but there needs to be some refinement and if we want that change to happen... let's keep this thread alive!

[Durant Carlyle]

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

For everyone here, but in particular for you, Durant, may I use some of this information, please? Many of the things you've said here make a whole lot of sense, and would make operations run so much more smoothly.

Go right ahead. As I said before, this is all hypothetical on my part anyway. I don't have a unit, and these are just ideas and thoughts I'm working through as people are asking questions and commenting. If I wanted to keep them proprietary, I wouldn't have put them up on the internet at all.

[Ratu]

I would say we're on the borderline between a 6 and a 7. We have a strict structure with fixed requirements for progression and a strong chain of command. However, we are also here for fun at the end of the day.
There's respect for the people with high rank because they are very experienced in the game, have good leadership abilities and are some of our best pilots. Likewise, there's respect for our lower ranked members, even raw recruits can still have a say in strategic decision making if they feel they can contribute something.

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 24 October 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Go right ahead. As I said before, this is all hypothetical on my part anyway. I don't have a unit, and these are just ideas and thoughts I'm working through as people are asking questions and commenting. If I wanted to keep them proprietary, I wouldn't have put them up on the internet at all.

Thank you, good sir.

I'm really glad this thread has remained as positive as possible, and that answers continue to come in. It's great!

[Mista Whizzard]

Were a 6.

Our Brigade High Command consists of our founder at the rank of Col., and 3 individuals at the rank of Lt. Col, one for each battalion. We have 3 battalions (obviously) one for each timezone. They are responsible for oversight of the website, teamspeak server, financial matters and the Brigade as a whole.

With rank comes responsibility. In any battalion in DHB, the buck stops with the Major. The major has 2 XO's holding the rank of Captain, and most day to day decisions at that level are unanimous across the 3 command staff. We are responsible for the oversight of the battalion and are expected to provide support and guidance to officers under our command. We are also responsible for the majority of the inter-unit diplomacy in our respective time zones.

Our Lt's are responsible for ensuring the recruitment process runs smoothly. They do the recruitment paperwork, and the interviews. I also charge my LT's with other specific roles and projects that I won't talk about here.

Our Sergeants are responsible for the organisation of training, lead by a CSM. The CSM is the main point of contact for Higher Command regarding anything training oriented. He is in charge of keeping all things related to training running smoothly. In the absence of higher command, our CSM is our Drop Commander in game. Although all officers are expected to provide feedback on our applicants prior to their acceptance into the brigade, it is the Sergeants who ensure this happens as quickly as possible. Sergeants are quite often our lance leaders in game.

All other members of a battalion hold the rank of Mechwarrior. There is no further segregation of players at all, we are all considered members of the same team. We feel skill based ranks can breed elitism, which can be problematic for a unit at best.

In game leadership is not set in stone, however all officers are expected to stand up and lead where and when needed. Some of our officers are great DC's, some are not. Some of our best shooters hold the rank of Mechwarrior, and being a Mechwarrior does not restrict one from being an in game leader at times, (although, a Mechwarrior that constantly offers to lead in game is inadvertantly asking for a promotion to Sargeant!). Holding a rank in DHB has little to do with personal skill, it is much more about attitude and leadership ability out of game, than within it..

Each rank also has certain responsibilities regarding any issues of grievance that come up along the way. Often, officers choose to step down from their positions due to real life issues or game burnout, this is not frowned upon, but encouraged, as we always try to have the right person in the right job at all times. Without this policy, it is difficult to keep the brigade going long term.

I think there is some insight there, yes?

Whiz.

Edited by Mista Whizzard, 24 October 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[Shamous13]

IMHO another major failing of MMO units is the grievance procedure and COC, these need to be some of the first things that need to be hammered out and they need to be adhered too by all levels of the command staff, Ive seen this fail time and time again due to double standards "Do as I say not as I do" and people pulling favoritism. The best grievance procedure that I've seen thus far is each party involved gets someone (neutral) to represent them, a panel of 5 piers are assembled to hear both sides and discuss the options to resolve the issue. This needs to be swift and can't be dragged out. The longer it's dragged out the more drama it will cause and the more damage that it will cause internally and the more people it will effect. By dragging on the process it can decimate a units moral and cohesion ripping a unit apart from the inside.

[Grendel408]

I would think that forming a sort of tribunal to hold case over two parties almost invites conflict to a degree... It's just common sense (and not a lot of people practice that sadly) that if you have an issue with someone, you deal with it personally and respectfully, being in a MMO at least the XO or CO of the unit should be notified of this to help mediate. Having two players form a rift between one another only causes others to start taking sides of either party, this eventually can cause a huge breakdown or schism and you find a unit decimated as you mentioned... but allowing such a system only invites the failure to happen.

Direct intervention from the highest member or highest two members of the unit should determine if it's best either one or the other, or both leave the unit for the betterment of the unit as a whole (worst case scenario). But, being that my unit only recruits 18+yrs of age players, I expect them to have a level of maturity that doesn't stoop back to High School antics.

[Threat Doc]

Shamous13, on 25 October 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

By dragging on the process it can decimate a units moral and cohesion ripping a unit apart from the inside.

Grendel408, on 25 October 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Direct intervention from the highest member or highest two members of the unit should determine if it's best either one or the other, or both leave the unit for the betterment of the unit as a whole (worst case scenario). But, being that my unit only recruits 18+yrs of age players, I expect them to have a level of maturity that doesn't stoop back to High School antics.

So, direct and swift intervention is what I'm hearing.

My problem has always been one of trying to be fair, to be inclusive and allow those in the command, not just the highest members, but those willing to take on a problem, to be a part of the solution. However, from both of you I'm hearing be swift and direct, get it done before it has a chance to infect the unit. Would you say my characterization is correct? If not, perhaps I could ask one or both of you to lay it out better for me, please?

Is it possible to be fair and inclusive, and NOT have the unit fracture, or become a series of factions within the unit, at least?

[Grendel408]

Well, to put it bluntly. Yes, quick and decisive action is needed. But approach both as the mediator trying to mend things, if the problem is too dramatic between both parties then it's best to determine what's ultimately good for the unit and not just the two parties involved in the conflict. Here's an example of what happened with the previous unit I was in (which I won't name out of respect)... Leadership became less and less involved, one player made a comment that didn't vibe with said leader, he kicked him. Me, being the guy I am, ask both parties (natural-born mediator I suppose LOL!) wtf in short, and I was given the explanation of "the player didn't fit in with the rest of the team." Which was totally wrong of course LOL! We all have bad days and he just happened to have one and voice his opinion in a manner someone didn't like, the wrong someone. Long story short, said leader has been absent or just quiet for a long while... activity drops, I post a poll... leader finally pops on claiming the "game is broken" so I did what I thought was best... grabbed those still active and formed BSI and have been recruiting since the 1st of Sept and formed out 2 companies and working on expanding to 3 companies to complete a battalion-level unit and start training for 12mans and CW.

[Grendel408]

Here's what's most important to remember... we all play this game to have fun with friends and stomp around a map in mechs blasting away on some unfortunate soul! Why let others ruin it for you and your unit with pointless drama that is usually started over something trivial

[Dreden Aelnir]

Grendel408, on 25 October 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Here's what's most important to remember... we all play this game to have fun with friends and stomp around a map in mechs blasting away on some unfortunate soul! Why let others ruin it for you and your unit with pointless drama that is usually started over something trivial

Preach it brother...

CPT Dreden Aelnir
CO Ebonheart Dragoons
http://sorshiaspie.e...com/recruitment

[Threat Doc]

I apologize for not responding earlier, but there are videos I've been trying to watch all week, so I designated earlier today to do so, and it still took time-and-a-half as long as normal, because I was also paying attention to AtD 50. Things around the house, lunch, etc., it's been difficult to get back to things. I still have that article about forming and maintaining merc units to read; I've seen the podcast by Roflwaffle49 and gang, concerning that article, but I still want to read the article, itself. My time is not normally quite this full.

Anyway... I'm going to have to get myself used to the idea that my previous command style, while effective during good times, is not effective, in the least, during times of potential strife. If I'm going to build a culture for my unit, something less fluid and a bit more solid -which, from all I've learned in this thread, thus far, has been a big problem all along-, then I'm going to have to learn how to be a bit more vigilant and tough. I believe part of honoring myself, and my friends, acquaintances, and buddies in Armageddon Unlimited is being as fair and forthright as possible. However, what I'm learning is that is not, necessarily, the best way to go.

Yeah, I think that about covers it.

So, we continue to have folks poke their heads in every so often, and are laying down some really good posts filled with their philosophy of leadership and/or cohesion for their individual units, and I definitely want to keep that going. Hopefully, this is a thread a LOT of folks can learn from, like I'm doing.

[Grendel408]

Kay, I'm just surprised no one else posted a thread like this over the last year or so from my knowledge. We're all peers here, and gaining the respect and learning from peers is an ideal situation. Otherwise, what you could truly learn on your own would take much more trial and effort than consulting your peers. We're all here for MWO, the Devs are here for us, PGI is there for the Devs... it's one big circle of robot-stomping-mech love here!