89 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

I've recently been the subject of the title header in a recent game.

Here, without any names or pointing of fingers, I want to establish the concept of "Good Plan, Bad Commander". I'm sure we've all been in matches were someone comes up with a good plan (or sometimes even a bad plan), and that's always a good thing. Any plan is often better than no plan at all. However, sometimes you can have an issue with the person saying the plan and how they are saying them.

The issue I recently came across was a commander who created a decent plan for HPG Network. He told us all to "get into the center, underneath". Okay, I can see some flaws, and some strengths with this very plan. Limiting arcs of fire (friend and foe unfortunately), remove LRMs and Art/Air strikes from the equation, etc. It's a decent plan, and enough people were moving in that direction. However, the commander, in this case, spoiled the entire concept with "anyone who doesn't, leave them outside to die".

Wait... what? You will sacrifice teammates and potential armor and firepower and leave them to die, just because they didn't do what you told them to do? What about those Direwolves (or other very slow mechs people might be playing)? What if they didn't get into the basement because they weren't "fast enough"? Are we suppose to just abandon them to reside on their own and die? I do understand abandoning some teammates because it would hurt more trying to support them, but we should still try to send some aid to help them if we can, not just reside them to die alone.

So, I spoke out against the concept of abandoning teammates. I was following the group, as it's wise to stay with your team, and followed the plan, but I was having serious issues with this particular person's "command ethics". Then, it all devolved into "Just die already" from the Commander to me. Seriously? The more this commander talked, the more I wanted to just do the complete opposite actions...

After a while, things devolved even farther, as at some point, I noticed the enemy were all around one entrance. I decided, I guess in rebellion to someone whom I had no farther respect for (honestly, I was seriously temped to just DC, but I haven't done it yet, and I wasn't going to start now), to move out of the center and push the enemy from the flank. Ended up being a good idea, as I killed a shut down Jagermech, and pulled enemies from the entrance. However, the commander didn't support me at all (because of his ethics), and waited for me to die before he decided "it was time to charge".

After I died, I got a "I'm glad you died early" from the commander. Apparently... he didn't see me get that kill, and deal second most damage and assists on our team... (I'll let my stats stand for me there.) We ended up winning because of the sound plan, but that doesn't mean that the commander was a good commander.



Basically, I can agree with the plan, but some commanders (and players) need to get an attitude adjustment. It's a game, but we still shouldn't be sacrificing "people who don't listen to me". You can come up with the best of plans, but still be a bad commander. My match clearly showed me this fact. The person also didn't understand I didn't have a problem with his plans, but instead had a problem with how he presented the plan. (He was also a member of some kind of sized premade group, as his fellow lance mates also went after me, and then at the end responded over and over again "Good commander" "Good commander" "great plan" "Good commander".)

I never like the concept of "abandoning" a teammate unless it just can't be helped. That, honestly, was the only problem I had with his plan. Then his command ethics got in the way more when he told me to just die. Seriously. What commander would ask an 85 ton mech bristling with weapons and can be a great asset to the team to just die and leave... (Or any mech, as even being down one can be harmful to you.)

[Mechteric]

That's not a commander, that's just some guy who wants a brawl with no real game deciding strategy. But in a PUG drop, there's often little alternative.

[Roland]

Hiding under the center is the derpiest of the derp plans. It leads to a very boring match with little actual movement.

[Alistair Winter]

Sounds like a douche, but all sorts of discussions during the first 5 minutes of a match reduce the chance of winning the match by 50% for every minute they last.

Any time someone says "Actually, I think we should..." the game is already over, because now you're always going to have one group either sticking to the original bad plan or switching to the new bad plan, against the majority.

My approach is always to follow the bad commander first, and then just point out why it didn't work after the match.

Unless I'm in my Raven 3L, because Raven pilots with ECM answer to no one except God and Natalie Portman.

[Deathlike]

I'll admit to being a bad commander, but only because you have to fail before you succeed sometimes.

The thing is, conditions change the situation... where if you are Charlie Lance in Skirmish on River City (B2 spawn IIRC), you have to realize that Daishis are a walking disaster until you can coax them with ECM to the Citadel.

What also is hard to determine is whether your team is completely passive or simply just chicken. There was a match I had yesterday that had people been more aggressive at the top of HPG instead of just going down into the center hiding... the match would have been much closer and possibly more decisive in our favor. What happens is that people who do not follow tend to get picked off... regardless of whether the decision is right or wrong.

Some things you can honestly say that you have no control of... but the best commanders are the ones that recognize what's happening at the moment in question and adjust their plans instead of just forcing that square peg in that round hole. The difference between winning and losing correlates to adapting...

Self-analysis can be done after a match... just don't screw with the current match, because indecisive/disagreements leads to failure.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 July 2014 - 09:57 AM.

[CyclonerM]

Somewhere, i cannot remember where, i have read a phrase i often quote:

"It is better to have a stupid commander than a group of soldiers going everywhere on their own".

[Navy Sixes]

It's tough, for a lot of players (even good ones) to take command in the PUGs.

It's easy to chalk failure up to the "derps," blame them for not following orders, not understanding orders, being obnoxious, etc.

The truth is that leadership isn't a "twitch" gaming skill. Clicking the company/lance command button doesn't make a player (no matter how good they are at the game) a leader anyone is going to want to follow. Good leaders inspire confidence, both in the plan and in the people they want to lead. The wannabe commander in the OP doesn't sound like someone who gets that.

As an aside, the basement in HPG is an excellent position to brawl from, as a potential objective during the course of the match, but what about your team's LRMs and other long range assets? Usually, when someone says basement, I think, "They built a one-dimensional brawler and they don't want to go down there to die alone."

When you command those distance builds into caves or basements or box-canyons or narrow streets, you are "abandoning them," just as surely as the guy in the OP. The assets are wasted. One of the signs that you're following someone worth following is that they will try to get a quick (Very quick! As someone mentioned above, people who talk too much at the beginning of a match don't often fare well.) assessment of the team's disposition before they come up with a plan.

[Roland]

Here are the things you need to know to win against like 90% of teams in mechwarrior:
1) don't be a coward and hide. You will die. You may die last, but you will die. Also, you won't have fun.
2) keep moving. Do not run to a location where you contact the enemy, and then stop. You will get engulfed, block your teammates shots, and die. Although you may have more fun than if you simply hid like a coward.

Against most players, simple aggression wins. Tons of players, regardless of how big their mech is, will cower and retreat under fire.

This means that if you and your team just push on them, even if you get shot a bit, your team will soon shoot them, causing them to stop shooting you. They will fall into confusion, and start taking far more damage than they deal, and they will die.

But what usually happens is that people will go to the edge of engagement, get shot, then back off. The next guy does the same, and since the first guy already retreated, the next guy is now focused on, and retreats. Repeat until the whole team is crippled or dead.

A bunch of you folks have played with me in the pug queue, and you have seen first hand how effective simply not being a freaking coward is.

[Tesunie]

CyclonerM, on 21 July 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Somewhere, i cannot remember where, i have read a phrase i often quote:

"It is better to have a stupid commander than a group of soldiers going everywhere on their own".

Basically along the same lines as "any plan is better than no plan".



I didn't have a problem with his plans (though I can see a lot of the same flaws many of you guys seem to with it), it was his concept to abandon anyone who didn't follow the plan.
I mean, if I had brought in one of my more LRM heavy mechs, as Tycho Von Gagrn said, what could I have done then? Sure, I can use those LRMs in that basement, but it really isn't easy to do... (Thankfully, I brought my Battlemaster, who had 6 med lasers, a LL and an UAC5 to handle things, but my LRM10 system was a waste that match.)
But, even then, his plan overall wasn't too bad. But, it was the concept to just abandon anyone who didn't listen to death was what really bothered me.

[Deathlike]

Well, here's two scenarios that people have to consider:

1) Mordor - The Thunderdome/PUG Zapper is home to bad execution and occasionally just the worst ideas ever existing.. but yet played to a mental game. While I hate the idea to get into the middle, it is still the most effective way of getting people to cooperate, and threatening them with death is the only way to get them there. This is arguably the only map where failure to execute that simple task in getting into the middle, is a deathwish, as there is NO SUPPORT SYSTEM for people for blocking the entrances to the killzone.. they'll just be killed naturally instead.

There's no reason to justify that, and also there's no guarantee of winning either, but you gotta get the team on the same page, so at the very least you have a shot on winning.

2) It was sometime last night where the fighting took place in the killzone corridor exits (to get in/out of the spawn/base areas). What tends to happen is that most players that CAMP at those positions TEND TO DIE. It took a bit of persuasion (or just lots of complaining - by watching arties go off in optimal locations) to tell the group NOT TO STAND AT THE DOORWAY AND PUSH further into the corridor. While it is not the most optimal of ideas, it's better than being easier targets. People still forget that moving helps with their surviveability factor, so the tendency to hold and camp is just a natural reaction... even if it accelerates their own doom.

So, I think people need to revise their understanding of the game and/or map over time or they'll just continue to be picked off the same way and repeat history... but hey, noone's forcing you to suck though.

[Cion]

Smack talk is generally a complete waste of effort and, in my opinion / experience, shows a lack of self esteem.

A good commander is one that has followers. Commanding style and effectiveness are two things that create followers. Different styles cater to different people. His style didn't resonate with you, me neither. If he got other people to follow him, and the plan worked then overall he did good as a commander.

[Willard Phule]

Considering the current state of the solo pug queue, all I can say is "at least he put forth a plan and someone followed it." At the moment, since new players have artifically inflated Elo scores, you simply can't assume that everyone on your team has any measure of experience. The simplest plan is "regroup. follow the herd. try not to shoot each other." If they can't handle that, then let them run around in the open and draw fire. That's really all they're good for.

To be completely honest, if you're the one taking charge and a couple of people don't want to follow the plan...all you CAN do is write them off as casualties. It's either that or endanger the rest of the command for a couple of boneheads that don't want to get with the program.

Granted, there's a huge difference between writing someone off and then crowing about it.

Cion, on 21 July 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Smack talk is generally a complete waste of effort and, in my opinion / experience, shows a lack of self esteem.

A good commander is one that has followers. Commanding style and effectiveness are two things that create followers. Different styles cater to different people. His style didn't resonate with you, me neither. If he got other people to follow him, and the plan worked then overall he did good as a commander.

Cion, if we were on the same team and I told you to "regroup at D4" in...oh, I don't know....Chinese, would you follow my order? Why not? Don't you speak Chinese?

See my point here? A lot of times, you can put stuff out in chat and someone simply won't understand the language that's used.

You can "take command" and put crap all over the map, but it's hard to do that and dodge LRMs at the same time.

[Wintersdark]

To the OP: I absolutely garauntee that your "commander" is going to be the one who complains later that "you can't lead PUG groups, they refuse to work together!"

The reality is that pretty much anyone taking command and presenting a plan - even a bad one - is going to greatly increase your chances of victory. As others have noted, arguing (even if you're absolutely right) does nothing but divide the team and reduce your chances of success.

The problem though is that people figure they can be as***les and still have people follow them. It doesn't work that way. People are very much less likely to listen to a would-be commander when he presents his ideas like that.

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Here are the things you need to know to win against like 90% of teams in mechwarrior:
1) don't be a coward and hide. You will die. You may die last, but you will die. Also, you won't have fun.
2) keep moving. Do not run to a location where you contact the enemy, and then stop. You will get engulfed, block your teammates shots, and die. Although you may have more fun than if you simply hid like a coward.

Against most players, simple aggression wins. Tons of players, regardless of how big their mech is, will cower and retreat under fire.

This means that if you and your team just push on them, even if you get shot a bit, your team will soon shoot them, causing them to stop shooting you. They will fall into confusion, and start taking far more damage than they deal, and they will die.

But what usually happens is that people will go to the edge of engagement, get shot, then back off. The next guy does the same, and since the first guy already retreated, the next guy is now focused on, and retreats. Repeat until the whole team is crippled or dead.

A bunch of you folks have played with me in the pug queue, and you have seen first hand how effective simply not being a freaking coward is.

I swear by this. It tends to lead to a decent WLR but a poor KDR. I'm a strong believer in encouragement through action, though, people are far more willing to follow an aggressive movement than start one. What it definitely does, though, is lead to a hell of a lot more fun overall. Passive games suck.

[Tesunie]

Willard Phule, on 21 July 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

To be completely honest, if you're the one taking charge and a couple of people don't want to follow the plan...all you CAN do is write them off as casualties. It's either that or endanger the rest of the command for a couple of boneheads that don't want to get with the program.

Granted, there's a huge difference between writing someone off and then crowing about it.

Thing is, you can even use those "boneheads" to your advantage sometimes. In this case, if they didn't want to go into the basement and they were running around outside, telling people "don't support them, let them die" is a waste. On the other hand, one could remain close to the basement entrance and try to put down some suppression fire possibly. Their distraction might even let a group that stepped out of the basement to even kill a few targets. (Everyone that I know of went to the basement though in my match, except for possibly one early death that I didn't know where he was.)
One can follow a plan, and still try to help wayward allies if possible. Refusing to help anyone "not working with the plan" is the part I have problems with.

A commander needs to be tactical, as well as adjustable. This commander was actually willing to just stand in the basement till the end of the match, if it wasn't for 3 other teammates (after I died, I think I got them started, but I can't say for sure) that rushed out together and started to mop up the enemy. Those three mechs broke from the commander's plans and forced that commander to order "Okay, I guess it's time to charge now". (Seen as by that point, those 3 mechs were about half the team.)




As a side note, I was afraid this was going to be a rant thread (I was trying to make a point, didn't know if I presented it well). Getting more attention than I thought it would...

[Willard Phule]

Wintersdark, on 21 July 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

To the OP: I absolutely garauntee that your "commander" is going to be the one who complains later that "you can't lead PUG groups, they refuse to work together!"

The reality is that pretty much anyone taking command and presenting a plan - even a bad one - is going to greatly increase your chances of victory. As others have noted, arguing (even if you're absolutely right) does nothing but divide the team and reduce your chances of success.

The problem though is that people figure they can be as***les and still have people follow them. It doesn't work that way. People are very much less likely to listen to a would-be commander when he presents his ideas like that.


I swear by this. It tends to lead to a decent WLR but a poor KDR. I'm a strong believer in encouragement through action, though, people are far more willing to follow an aggressive movement than start one. What it definitely does, though, is lead to a hell of a lot more fun overall. Passive games suck.

And....if you're going to take charge and present a plan, be ready to lead the way. NOONE wants to have some goober in the rear tell them to "PUSH FORWARD" while he just sits there like a stationary turret.

[Tesunie]

Deathlike, on 21 July 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Well, here's two scenarios that people have to consider:

This will, of course, also depend upon your mech and it's build. For me, I tend to back off once I start getting hit in the entrance if I can without blocking someone else. Reason for this is that many of my mechs support some LRMs (to many of them), so I try to still support the action, while letting those better equipped to do the rushing task to preform their tasks. (This isn't to say that I don't push forwards either those, as I tend to try and rush forwards to the crates/cover that rests right outside the tunnel entrance if I can. Good place to deal damage from, while having most of my mech in cover.)

A lot of command is about being flexible and trying to see what is best for your team and their composition. However, I agree that backing off every time you take damage isn't always a good choice of action either. There are times to push forwards (with teammates who follow hopefully) and times to fall back (when no one else is supporting the charge). Sometimes, it's really hard to gauge when to do what...

(I was going to say something that was better worded in my head... but I forgot half of it before I could start typing.

[Piney II]

Willard Phule, on 21 July 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

And....if you're going to take charge and present a plan, be ready to lead the way. NOONE wants to have some goober in the rear tell them to "PUSH FORWARD" while he just sits there like a stationary turret.

LOL!

I've seen this a few times. The "Commander" stands way back and urges his troops to push into the pug zapper. Or he calls for a cave rush while he's comfortably a kilometer from the scene.

[Tesunie]

Piney, on 21 July 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

LOL!

I've seen this a few times. The "Commander" stands way back and urges his troops to push into the pug zapper. Or he calls for a cave rush while he's comfortably a kilometer from the scene.

Though I agree, it is best to lead from example, there are times when it is sometimes best to have the commander being a little farther from the fight. As an LRM mech, sometimes I am being more aware of my surroundings, as I have more time (match depending) to be able to look around, or watch my minimap. Of course, this is typically a rarity, and the examples posted above are probably "good plan, bad commander" examples... (Charge into that cave! *Commander has no idea what's in that cave or what is happening over on that section of the map*)

[Deathlike]

Tesunie, on 21 July 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

This will, of course, also depend upon your mech and it's build. For me, I tend to back off once I start getting hit in the entrance if I can without blocking someone else. Reason for this is that many of my mechs support some LRMs (to many of them), so I try to still support the action, while letting those better equipped to do the rushing task to preform their tasks. (This isn't to say that I don't push forwards either those, as I tend to try and rush forwards to the crates/cover that rests right outside the tunnel entrance if I can. Good place to deal damage from, while having most of my mech in cover.)

I personally think that to be effective most of the time, you can't have weapons that are unreliable... and LRMs tend to fall into that category (well, that and small lasers for non-Lights). This has a lot to do with mech building and versatility, so as much as some people argue LRM viability to death, even the existence of the anti-LRM areas (underside of HPG, Crimson Strait's garage-saddle) demands versatility in builds.

Quote

A lot of command is about being flexible and trying to see what is best for your team and their composition. However, I agree that backing off every time you take damage isn't always a good choice of action either. There are times to push forwards (with teammates who follow hopefully) and times to fall back (when no one else is supporting the charge). Sometimes, it's really hard to gauge when to do what...

The only time where camping is effective is under the one circumstance that your team is consistently DISHING MORE DAMAGE THAN TAKING. When you are losing that mini-battle, you simply have to take a different course of action. That is why I hate camping in any PUG match... there's no guarantee your teammates will accomplish that feat with any consistency. If you're like the Lords, then you'll probably succeed more often than not, but that's them... and not the norm.

That's what makes movement more important generally... although positioning can certainly impact the match.

[Gyrok]

Roland, on 21 July 2014 - 09:53 AM, said:

Hiding under the center is the derpiest of the derp plans. It leads to a very boring match with little actual movement.

Actually, there are plans to dig them out, you would be surprised how fast..."haha, come at me bro!" turns into "OH SH*T!!!"