157 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Adridos, I'm going to quote a post you made in the Q&A4 thread, but it's only because your post is indicative of many others I read in that thread, not because I'm trying to pick on you, alright?

Adridos, on 02 February 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

2nd question "Commander":

How is commander "class" handled? Is it a specialised proffesion people choose just like evry other and are then sent onto field or are there some differences? Not everyone can be a good commander, since it takes a lot of effort to master this kind of warfare and having a bad commander on the team will kill you, no matter how good you are and vice versa. So, are there any criteria for becoming one? Or, do the players themselves elect the commander? Do you plan to do something about this?

I'm afraid I'm gettin' pretty tired of the commander bashing, so I need to ask you guys, as a commander and a leader -not always the same thing-, why are several of you bashing on commanders and those who've chosen to take on a leadership role?

I mean, if you don't trust your commander, or you don't trust the guy that's going to be in a drop with you that is appointed to be a commander, even if they're not in a Command role, then why not step up and become a commander yourself, or take the lead in a drop if you don't trust anyone else to lead you properly?

I'm honestly not trying to cause any sort of division or trouble, here, I'm simply seeking an honest answer, and I am seeing a LOT of commander bashing out there. Why? If you join a unit because you know you're not a leader, or not a very good one, then what criteria do you use to determine who a good leader would be for you, and why would anyone complain about their chosen unit's leader once they're in the unit? If you're not confident in your leader, or know for a fact you could do a better job, please become a lone wolf or start your own unit, don't keep bashing those who decide to take on what can be a greatly difficult job.

Now, I'm also curious to see if there will be any sort of special program to determine who are capable of being leaders in MWO and who are not, but I have a feeling PGI is going to take the route of not messing with what's already come before, and I don't blame them. At least we'll have the opportunity to have leaders, through the Command Role, in this game, and that's a step up from previous Leagues, far better than we've ever seen.

There is no such thing as a perfect commander because, just like every single one of you, except for training we've received in the real world and/or what we've learned through heading up online units, we're just as clueless as everyone else is. The differences are that education and the fact we have cajones large enough to say, "Hey, guys, come over here if you want someone to take care of training, discipline and paperwork so you can go have fun!"

My qualifications as a leader are, I've eventually been placed in charge of all but two jobs I've ever had in my life because I'm trustworthy, hard working, and not afraid to make decisions. That's four burger joints, JC Penney for three Christmas seasons straight, the U.S. Army for 6 years (where I ran the Regiment Aviation Life Support Equipment Shop for eighteen months by myself, fresh out of ALSE school, and where I was in charge of two squads of mechanics fixing Blackhawk helicopters for a full month, as a Specialist (E4)), and Industrial Hydraulics where I was the Shop Steward/Manager for four months before that business closed their doors (money problems, not anything I did), and Sikorsky Support Services, Incorporated (where I built the RESET Production Control office from scratch without prior training and exceeded U.S. Army standards, and then was given a larger PC office that I had to retool because the previous employee had it completely screwed up), is my experience. I've been in leadership all my adult life, and some of my teenage life, and I've got almost fourteen years of running my unit online in various Leagues.

Many of those out there who are claiming to be commanders and/or leaders are in the same boat, lots of experience, both in the real world and in game. So, why all the bashing?

[TheRulesLawyer]

They're all just afraid of having some yahoo telling them what to do on the battlefield. Its a legitimate concern if people choosing that class start thinking that gives them the right to boss everyone around.

[CoffiNail]

But it is not a class... it is a skill set. And joe shmoe in his jenner taking points of scouting feels he wants some commander tree points as well. Now he has both.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i look forward to having good commanders in the field. esp one who knows the ins and outs of airsupport, how to fold a sweater and could quite possible serve that artillary strike up to the enemy with a side order of fries.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Geist Null, on 02 February 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

i look forward to having good commanders in the field. esp one who knows the ins and outs of airsupport, how to fold a sweater and could quite possible serve that artillary strike up to the enemy with a side order of fries.

I'm more impressed if my commander can fold a fitted sheet without it looking like a ball at the end.

[Aegis Kleais]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Adridos, I'm going to quote a post you made in the Q&A4 thread, but it's only because your post is indicative of many others I read in that thread, not because I'm trying to pick on you, alright?


I'm afraid I'm gettin' pretty tired of the commander bashing, so I need to ask you guys, as a commander and a leader -not always the same thing-, why are several of you bashing on commanders and those who've chosen to take on a leadership role?

I mean, if you don't trust your commander, or you don't trust the guy that's going to be in a drop with you that is appointed to be a commander, even if they're not in a Command role, then why not step up and become a commander yourself, or take the lead in a drop if you don't trust anyone else to lead you properly?

I'm honestly not trying to cause any sort of division or trouble, here, I'm simply seeking an honest answer, and I am seeing a LOT of commander bashing out there. Why? If you join a unit because you know you're not a leader, or not a very good one, then what criteria do you use to determine who a good leader would be for you, and why would anyone complain about their chosen unit's leader once they're in the unit? If you're not confident in your leader, or know for a fact you could do a better job, please become a lone wolf or start your own unit, don't keep bashing those who decide to take on what can be a greatly difficult job.

Now, I'm also curious to see if there will be any sort of special program to determine who are capable of being leaders in MWO and who are not, but I have a feeling PGI is going to take the route of not messing with what's already come before, and I don't blame them. At least we'll have the opportunity to have leaders, through the Command Role, in this game, and that's a step up from previous Leagues, far better than we've ever seen.

There is no such thing as a perfect commander because, just like every single one of you, except for training we've received in the real world and/or what we've learned through heading up online units, we're just as clueless as everyone else is. The differences are that education and the fact we have cajones large enough to say, "Hey, guys, come over here if you want someone to take care of training, discipline and paperwork so you can go have fun!"

My qualifications as a leader are, I've eventually been placed in charge of all but two jobs I've ever had in my life because I'm trustworthy, hard working, and not afraid to make decisions. That's four burger joints, JC Penney for three Christmas seasons straight, the U.S. Army for 6 years (where I ran the Regiment Aviation Life Support Equipment Shop for eighteen months by myself, fresh out of ALSE school, and where I was in charge of two squads of mechanics fixing Blackhawk helicopters for a full month, as a Specialist (E4)), and Industrial Hydraulics where I was the Shop Steward/Manager for four months before that business closed their doors (money problems, not anything I did), and Sikorsky Support Services, Incorporated (where I built the RESET Production Control office from scratch without prior training and exceeded U.S. Army standards, and then was given a larger PC office that I had to retool because the previous employee had it completely screwed up), is my experience. I've been in leadership all my adult life, and some of my teenage life, and I've got almost fourteen years of running my unit online in various Leagues.

Many of those out there who are claiming to be commanders and/or leaders are in the same boat, lots of experience, both in the real world and in game. So, why all the bashing?

From a subjective point of view there are a couple things of note I've made from my experience in games.

1. PEOPLE WANT A SCAPEGOAT FOR FAILURE.
With a title like "Commander", it indicates that this person was responsible, and when people suffer personal failures (even against the commands of the commander), rather than take personal responsibility and blame themselves, they just blame the commander.

2. PEOPLE HAVE AUTHORITY ISSUES
The vast majority of people I see were never run through a boot camp in order to understand the chain of command and why it is important on the battlefield; instead, they act as a lone wolf, of their own volition, completely ignoring the team aspect of play and willfully disobeying a Commander's orders because they feel they are being bossed around.

3. POOR COMMANDERS DONT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY EITHER
When a person puts themselves in the role of commander who is not trained or efficient in it, they get upset at how orders are not being issued. The unit again fails to act as one, and everyone suffers.

For the most part, a good commander is complemented by a good lance, communications and teamwork (and vice-versa), but this takes active training between all participants. Since this is rare to find in pubs and pugs, it will probably be an ever-present issue during the game's lifespan. The only way around it is to put the time and effort into working collectively to ensure that the team benefits from the commander, and the commander is a sound tactical and strategic leader.

[metro]

CoffiNail, on 02 February 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

But it is not a class... it is a skill set. And joe shmoe in his jenner taking points of scouting feels he wants some commander tree points as well. Now he has both.

Hey COFFI !

Thank you.

[Dihm]

Nobody likes me
Everybody hates me
I'm gonna go eat worms

Short fat juicy ones
Long slim slimy ones
Itsy bitsy fuzzy wuzzy worms.

In all seriousness though, I think you do have to draw a distinction between pick up group commanders and merc unit commanders. It's all well and good to talk about people needing to respect the chain of command, focus on teamwork, commanders taking responsibility, and all that, but only if that person is part of a merc unit that utilizes said system. Random matches tend to be filled with people who just want to get out there and have fun (and maybe only have a half hour before the kid wakes up and needs a feeding), and holding those matches to the same standards as say, planetary conquest or league matches, isn't quite fair.

The real issue people seem to have is when they get put into random matches, and the "commander" ends up being AFK, dropping artillary on their own troops, drawing suggestive stick figures instead of pointing out enemy positions, things of that nature. There's only so much you can do to prevent that. The easiest way is to join a dedicated group.

Now, having a crap commander isn't necessarily going to mean you lose, because in a PUG, odds are equally high that the other team won't be coordinated and effective either. Of course, you'll still run in to cases where your PUG ends up going against a company all made up of highly organized mercs, and you'll get stomped. Nature of the beast.

[DaZur]

A commander needs to be able to command beyond the "you go there and shoot that thing". They need to have command of the battlefield... know where to allocate their resources, have humility to know when his lance or lances is getting their arse handed to them and pull them back, know when to press the attack, and always keep the objective of the mission above his arrogance...

Long and short, I've had very limited experience with someone assuming the commander role in other online games that knew their **** from a hole in the ground. Far too often this person end up being the biggest "derp" in the session and as eluded to previously blames everyone else for their failures and takes no responsibilities of their own.

I have high hopes for MWO as I get the impression were have people around here that have a cue and are not card-holding members of the "Griefers Club"...

[Kaemon]

I don't think people are bashing the command role, as much as bashing allowing ***** commanders. We know that just having command skills won't necessarily make people follow you (or make you commander) but just how this will be determined we'll have to see (and I'll assume it'll require some tweaking in Beta).

The knee **** reaction almost everyone gives is 'I'm a good commander, others are not' when in actuality it's probably more like 'I am a functional commander, most sucktards cannot command their way out of a wet paper bag'.

That's not a knock (and not directed at OP or anyone in particular), it's a harsh fact of life, command requires multi-tasking (another skillset people feel they have in spades, it's quite rare), tactical situational understanding, knowledge of your assets on field (strengths/weaknesses, pilot skills, deficiencies, tendancies) while assimilating information about the enemy (position, assets, tactics) and relaying orders (and berating/cajoling/demanding) and getting players to commit to your directions.

I've commanded before, and I have no love of it, it's exhausting, and I merely pick up the line when everyone else has failed (or died) and I'm the next logical choice.

I personally think people who want to command are nucking futs, as it's 95% grief 4% praise (and about 1% success).

That being said, I'll roll with anyone who needs an 'excellent' scout (heh) once...if you're bad...more if you're not.

The gameplay will decide.

[Dihm]

DaZur, on 02 February 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Long and short, I've had very limited experience with someone assuming the commander role in other online games that knew their **** from a hole in the ground. Far too often this person end up being the biggest "derp" in the session and as eluded to previously blames everyone else for their failures and takes no responsibilities of their own.

Question for you then, what do you do in this instance? Do you take command? Do you give constructive help to the commander? Not everyone is instantly successful. Just like becoming a good pilot, it takes time, practice, and patience.

[Threat Doc]

TheRulesLawyer, on 02 February 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

They're all just afraid of having some yahoo telling them what to do on the battlefield. Its a legitimate concern if people choosing that class start thinking that gives them the right to boss everyone around.

The Commander IS there to "boss them around", though, that's the role of a Commander on the battlefield. If the Commander doesn't take care of that responsibility, the team will lose. The problem with the players who are asking about Commanders, I believe, has to do with their personal desire for individual, rather than team, glory, to allow them to be primadonna's on the field; the team be damned. Forgive me, TRL, but it's NOT a legitimate concern; this is a military-based game and, yes, though it's designed to be fun, without coordination, without effort on the parts of ALL involved, the game is not going to continue to be fun, because people are going to lose.

Forgive me if it seems like I'm attacking you, because I'm honestly not. I understand the concern you've brought to the forefront, whether you're simply stating it, or you're actually stating it as one of your own. If an individual is going to join a team in the real-world, whether it's a sports team (professional or amateur), a gang, a union, whatever it is, there WILL be a leader and, if the leader's smart, there will be Lieutenants, Captains, and in some parts even an Enforcer (not the 'Mech, hehe). Anyone not willing to fall into this is being terribly unrealistic and will do better on their own.

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 February 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

From a subjective point of view there are a couple things of note I've made from my experience in games.

1. PEOPLE WANT A SCAPEGOAT FOR FAILURE.
With a title like "Commander", it indicates that this person was responsible, and when people suffer personal failures (even against the commands of the commander), rather than take personal responsibility and blame themselves, they just blame the commander.

Been there, done that, burned the t-shirts.

Quote

2. PEOPLE HAVE AUTHORITY ISSUES
The vast majority of people I see were never run through a boot camp in order to understand the chain of command and why it is important on the battlefield; instead, they act as a lone wolf, of their own volition, completely ignoring the team aspect of play and willfully disobeying a Commander's orders because they feel they are being bossed around.

That's why it falls to a Training OIC to ensure people do understand the plays for the team, can form up and do what needs to be done for the win. Any leader who doesn't do it that way has failed. Unfortunately, it comes back to something I said a moment ago... it's terribly unrealistic to expect anything other than a command structure and a militaristic viewpoint in a game universe developed around military conflict.

Quote

3. POOR COMMANDERS DONT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY EITHER
When a person puts themselves in the role of commander who is not trained or efficient in it, they get upset at how orders are not being issued. The unit again fails to act as one, and everyone suffers.

This is what happened to me when I first began playing MechWarrior 2. I try to speak as positively as possible about my prior experiences, but the truth is, except for Archangel and his crew in Wolf's Dragoons, back then before they switched over to Clan Goliath Scorpion, they were wankers, they didn't know what they were doing, really.

Quote

For the most part, a good commander is complemented by a good lance, communications and teamwork (and vice-versa), but this takes active training between all participants. Since this is rare to find in pubs and pugs, it will probably be an ever-present issue during the game's lifespan. The only way around it is to put the time and effort into working collectively to ensure that the team benefits from the commander, and the commander is a sound tactical and strategic leader.

Precisely. I know you and I don't agree often, but capital post, man.

Dihm, on 02 February 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

In all seriousness though, I think you do have to draw a distinction between pick up group commanders and merc unit commanders. It's all well and good to talk about people needing to respect the chain of command, focus on teamwork, commanders taking responsibility, and all that, but only if that person is part of a merc unit that utilizes said system. Random matches tend to be filled with people who just want to get out there and have fun (and maybe only have a half hour before the kid wakes up and needs a feeding), and holding those matches to the same standards as say, planetary conquest or league matches, isn't quite fair.

Do you think that's what a lot of people are talking about is playing in PUGs? I suppose that's possible, but the bashing is pretty generalized against commanders.

Quote

The real issue people seem to have is when they get put into random matches, and the "commander" ends up being AFK, dropping artillary on their own troops, drawing suggestive stick figures instead of pointing out enemy positions, things of that nature. There's only so much you can do to prevent that. The easiest way is to join a dedicated group.

Now, having a crap commander isn't necessarily going to mean you lose, because in a PUG, odds are equally high that the other team won't be coordinated and effective either. Of course, you'll still run in to cases where your PUG ends up going against a company all made up of highly organized mercs, and you'll get stomped. Nature of the beast.

Well-thought, and you're absolutely correct. So, the issue then transforms into...
1) Either you're a lone wolf and have to deal with the greater potential that PUGs are going to be disorganized and incapable, or

2) You need to follow orders and get "bossed around" on the battlefield so you can win. Not a tough choice for me.

[m0nk33]

There will always be those who think they have what it takes to lead, and those that do have what it takes. I would hope that the people in houses and merc corps would not have to worry about this subject as much. It will probably be those of us who have not chosen to work with an established group that will get the brunt of the bad leaders, and that will make working with good ones that much better. I also believe that we learn from mistakes and that working with bad leaders will teach us what not to do in the future. In the end, I hope that we will all find teammates that we can work with and am eagerly anticipating getting to fight and learn alongside all of you.

Oh and fitted sheets aren't that hard once you tuck all the corners together

[firefox117]

People really dont care in games either. They know they can just run and shoot whatever they want, and not listen. After all, what happens if they disobey the commander? Look back at Battlefield 2, they had the same thing. Ive played with some great commanders in that game, but most people just didnt listen.

As far as those that complain, its the same thing. You can yell and scream at anyone you want online, and act tough, but they dont want to take that role on themselves for the same reason. People are always going to complain. The issue is that whether you like it or not, you should still follow the commander. Most the time people are trying to do their best, and at least let them try. After that, then either step up and do it yourself, or sit back and **** up.

[DarkTreader]

Aegis Kleais™, on 02 February 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

From a subjective point of view there are a couple things of note I've made from my experience in games.

1. PEOPLE WANT A SCAPEGOAT FOR FAILURE.
With a title like "Commander", it indicates that this person was responsible, and when people suffer personal failures (even against the commands of the commander), rather than take personal responsibility and blame themselves, they just blame the commander.

2. PEOPLE HAVE AUTHORITY ISSUES
The vast majority of people I see were never run through a boot camp in order to understand the chain of command and why it is important on the battlefield; instead, they act as a lone wolf, of their own volition, completely ignoring the team aspect of play and willfully disobeying a Commander's orders because they feel they are being bossed around.

3. POOR COMMANDERS DONT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY EITHER
When a person puts themselves in the role of commander who is not trained or efficient in it, they get upset at how orders are not being issued. The unit again fails to act as one, and everyone suffers.

For the most part, a good commander is complemented by a good lance, communications and teamwork (and vice-versa), but this takes active training between all participants. Since this is rare to find in pubs and pugs, it will probably be an ever-present issue during the game's lifespan. The only way around it is to put the time and effort into working collectively to ensure that the team benefits from the commander, and the commander is a sound tactical and strategic leader.

Truth. Far too many people buy into that saying of 'players win games, but coaches lose them'... which I never quite understood myself, but then again, I don't play foosball.
People love being able to blame someone else for their mistakes, saying 'Hey, I wouldnt've died if the LC wouldn'tve sent me to guard that pass,' when in reality, they died because they screwed the pooch, stepped out of cover, or just had plain ol' bad luck.

[DaZur]

Dihm, on 02 February 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Question for you then, what do you do in this instance? Do you take command? Do you give constructive help to the commander? Not everyone is instantly successful. Just like becoming a good pilot, it takes time, practice, and patience.

Quite honestly (and I hate to paint with such a wide brush) I cannot think of any commander I've played under that could not put aside their ego and take constructive criticism and or suggestion... Yes, I've played in games where you can kick the commander for being an ineffective "derp" and I cannot say I have the requisite skill-set to fill the shoes...

That said, this is a new game, new community for me and I'll hold judgement for when the cow-pies hit the fan.

Edited by DaZur, 02 February 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

The best Commanders are those who have under them a group of players who wish to succeed as much as the Commander does. Most missions I have been involved in, back in the day, most of the Command work was done Pre-drop. We had access to the Intel (map) we needed, we knew, usually, something of the other Team, and then everyone did their job.

Did we always win? Nope. Some guy named Murphy made some Law that makes sure of that, but we did know or chances were pretty good, and that was due to the Team. We didn't put the whole ownes on one member, the Commander.

Everyone wants to try. Given a chance, many may discover they can or can't. As noted above. Don't like the Command of others, Module your buttocks up and then hope that those under your Command don't feel that same way you did when its your at the helm.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 February 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Dihm]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

Do you think that's what a lot of people are talking about is playing in PUGs? I suppose that's possible, but the bashing is pretty generalized against commanders.

I really do think that's where the "criticism" is directed honestly. The merc unit commanders (at all levels, regimental down through lance) just get lumped in. Honestly, we are the outliers, not the norm. The majority of people will be playing Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch I imagine, Conquest is more for the "hardcore".

Plus, if one of our people bad mouth us as commanders without being constructive, they'll learn where the door is pretty quick.

[Helmer]

I guess we will have to see how the game handles the "class" decision. And as Coffi pointed out, its a skillset, not necessairly something you can artificially enforce with game mechanics (Don't get me wrong, to a certain extent, system will help that role)

I'd imagine many of us on the boards are older professionals who are in their daily life, leaders. The thought of having an inept 14 year old (No offense to anyone) screaming over comms turns a few off.
Personally, I have a staff of roughly 90 individuals whom I oversee on a daily basis. 50-60 hour works weeks. And allowing someone else to take over the leadership role suite me just fine!!! I LOVE LOVE LOVE being in a support role. Being someone who is counted on to stick to their job and get it done. I know it makes a commanders job easier.

It comes down to the individuals who play. Some think they are better commanders or leaders than what they actually are, and no one wants to get stuck in a random drop with someone who doesn't know what they are doing.

That being said, I agree with some of the above posts. The Commander/Leadership role is TOUGH. And people like a ScapeGoat.

Teams that drop together, have an effective Commander/Leader, and work well together will always prevail. Just more incentive to join a group with friends and drop with them.

[ScrewCityChris]

MaddMaxx, on 02 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

The best Commanders are those who have under them a group of players who wish to succeed as much as the Commander does.

And that is why we have an application process to join our Corp