157 replies to this topic

[Kaemon]

Harrow, on 02 February 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

This is the absolute truth. Anything less than leadership in another MMO or online FPS is fairly irrelevant. So people who've played in the online leagues as leaders should have an easy transition here as a potential lance or company leader but so will leaders from raiding guilds in MMO's or squads from online shooters. Basically anyone who has flourished in the role of being a leader in a team based online gaming environment.

Disagree, as leadership skills do not vary from situation to situation, merely the mechanics of applying them. If there is a failure of transition from one scenario to another, it's more likely you weren't a very good leader to begin with (since you have issues dealing with changing tactics and mechanics, which is a big part of being able to lead).

Following this argument fully, however, would actually state that ANY other type of leadership (even in other FPS/MMOs) is worthless, and only practiced leadership in this game, is worth a damn for this game.

Just a thought.

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot how I can't say yerk or $hmuck but eternal damnation slips the filter...Gazinga!

Edited by Kaemon, 02 February 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[Dihm]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 February 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

My worry is that a number of people both here and elsewhere are assuming that we will have some form or "organisation" within Factions/Houses. I may be wrong, but everything that I have read so far has lead me to believe that there is no organisation within a House. You may "belong" to that House, but there is no formal grouping, or at the moment, ability to form, "units" within the House. If this is the case then Faction members are not much better off, as far as organisation goes, than Lone Wolves.

Yep, until they allow custom faction units, which they said MAY come after launch, that is exactly my read on things. I'm not quite sure how people are expecting/planning to lead canon faction units or even the entire House/Faction, given what we know. Still see a lot of that.

[Threat Doc]

I'll answer what I have, here, and then move on to page 3...

Viper Centurion, on 02 February 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Why are we picking Commanders? Simple, to blame and shoot at when they bring His/Her troops to their doom.

Shoulders getting heavier.

Demona, on 02 February 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Why is everyone thinking the commander is the leader? They don't have to be. They can be nothing more than intel, reporting information to the team.

They can be, though more often than not the guy who's in charge is the guy leading. Ummm, not making sense, what you said, at least not to me. I'm the Commanding Officer of my unit, and I will lead my unit as much as possible. Now, if you're talking about drop leaders, then you're right, the commander does not always have to be the leader. If you've read the most recent Dev Blogs, you'll notice they explained that the commander -I'm assuming of the drop- will need to be protected; it's been hinted at strongly one time, and outright expressed in yesterday's blog. They also explained that the commander will have to travel with his unit and can not just remain at the start point for the Lance or Company; so, if I'm the highest rank in the room, I'm the commander of the drop, as well, unless I'm training a new Drop Commander.

Quote

The concept was perfect in Chromehounds and I'm excited to see it here. Having better intel than the enemy can often lead to a win.

I think it's going to be enormously important for me to have the BattleGrid available, to accumulate and process incoming intel and then get it out to my people, as necessary. In that regard, I'm going to be a glorified paper pusher; however, when the fight gets thick enough, or no orders need to go out for the time being, my eyes are going to be out the window so I can see and fight. I will NOT micromanage my friends and allies.

Harrow, on 02 February 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

During my time in the Army we had a saying: Do the job, come home.

Amen.

[Threat Doc]

Kaemon, on 02 February 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Disagree, as leadership skills do not vary from situation to situation, merely the mechanics of applying them. If there is a failure of transition from one scenario to another, it's more likely you weren't a very good leader to begin with (since you have issues dealing with changing tactics and mechanics, which is a big part of being able to lead).

Dead on Kaemon... absolutely dead on.

[Harrow]

Kaemon, on 02 February 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Disagree, as leadership skills do not vary from situation to situation, merely the mechanics of applying them. If there is a failure of transition from one scenario to another, it's more likely you weren't a very good leader to begin with (since you have issues dealing with changing tactics and mechanics, which is a big part of being able to lead).

Following this argument fully, however, would actually state that ANY other type of leadership (even in other FPS/MMOs) is worthless, and only practiced leadership in this game, is worth a damn for this game.

Just a thought.

Whiskey.Tango.Foxtrot how I can't say yerk or $hmuck but eternal damnation slips the filter...Gazinga!

So you're saying the department head of an accounting department who has never seen a video game is going to be successful here? The point I was trying to make is that people who already posses a proficiency within a skillset (online mech combat, team based mmo/fps) have a leg up all things being equal in terms of leadership capability which is the cornerstone behind modern military tactics. You learn to actually shoot, move, and communicate (remember that one Kay?) and then when you've demonstrated competence you can move into a leadership role. They don't bring in a cook from the dining facility and put him in charge of a infantry platoon, no matter how muchpotential he or she has. They will however allow him/her to learn the basics, then the advanced training, and by then know whether or not they are capable of leadership. This is the way with all things.

Yes I agree having been a leader in other areas displays the aptitude for leadership in general but it doesn't automatically mean that person will be proficient at the underlying skillset required to be successful in this game AND be a leader. Hence my original post...

[Garth Erlam]

One thing I'd like to make VERY clear here is that Commanders can't force you to do anything. They give suggestions and extra logistical support - they cannot force actions.

To paraphrase Paul: Depending on the actions of the Commanders - how useful their suggestions are, how much real info they give, etc - they get more XP for their role.

We want to make it very clear though that 'Commanders' merely help and suggest, they do not make, overrule, or in any way force your hand. They are another layer on top of Scouting for information and support.

[Liam]

I guess random games will be similar to LoL ... bashing, flames etc.

Quote

We want to make it very clear though that 'Commanders' merely help and suggest, they do not make, overrule, or in any way force your hand. They are another layer on top of Scouting for information and support.

hm maybe something similar to pinging on the map etc.

Edited by Liam, 02 February 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[m0nk33]

Liam, on 02 February 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I guess random games will be similar to LoL ... bashing, flames etc.



hm maybe something similar to pinging on the map etc.

If so, I hope to have a nice solid base of groups to play for quickly. I really don't like that aspect of LoL

[SilentObserver]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

I think it's going to be enormously important for me to have the BattleGrid available, to accumulate and process incoming intel and then get it out to my people, as necessary. In that regard, I'm going to be a glorified paper pusher; however, when the fight gets thick enough, or no orders need to go out for the time being, my eyes are going to be out the window so I can see and fight. I will NOT micromanage my friends and allies.

This, If you have a plan. tell me what it is and let me do my best to implement it. but remember this is not mechcommander. I will be choosing my own targets and I will choose my own route to where ever i need to be. Also if i feel the need to fall back I will.
For My part I will do my best to try and implement the whatever strategy the team is trying to pull off as well as try to keep the commander informed of changes that they should know about.

I think the biggest issue is, i've seen a lot of post from potential commanders who seem to expect thier orders to be followed without question. As many other people in this thread have stated. No one wants to be barked at. No one wants to be micromanaged. Tell we what you want done and let me decide how to do it.

[MilitantMonk]

If anyone has played the Battlefield series you always know when you have a great commander. Nobody is complaining everyone is too busy following orders and taking ground. They are giving the squad leaders waypoints and airstrikes to clear the way to the objective and the whole game suddenly seems much easier. The resistance at a tough ridge up ahead evaporates once the flanking squad gets into position and everyone advances up the line. The mavericks tend to fall in quickly since their frontal assaults are hurting their own K:D ratios.

[Omigir]

Commanders = officers.. :C Nuff said.

[gregsolidus]

MilitantMonk, on 02 February 2012 - 01:28 PM, said:

If anyone has played the Battlefield series you always know when you have a great commander. Nobody is complaining everyone is too busy following orders and taking ground. They are giving the squad leaders waypoints and airstrikes to clear the way to the objective and the whole game suddenly seems much easier. The resistance at a tough ridge up ahead evaporates once the flanking squad gets into position and everyone advances up the line. The mavericks tend to fall in quickly since their frontal assaults are hurting their own K:D ratios.

Or if you've played Battlefield you know you can win with a terrible commander or without one at all,one man does not tear down a team.

[SilentObserver]

Omigir, on 02 February 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Commanders = officers.. :C Nuff said.

Look up the original definition of fragging.

Fortunately bad commanders can just be ignored, I wont actually have to shoot them.

[Aegis Kleais]

Natural leaders will have no problem acquiring followers.

To follow is not an act of submission. Most people confuse that. They want to be their own boss, and a good boss isn't one who ignores orders (as good teammates aren't ones that always question orders)

I don't lead because my dad (Brutus Kleais) gave me an epiphany when I came to him and said that I might have a fear of success. He said that the reason why I don't lead is because I know I can support others much better than they can support me, and after I looked at it that way, I realized it was true. My abilities are there for the commander to allocate and direct; I won't blindly follow just any order; but what I bring to the team in my specialized role will be invaluable and an asset to our success.

[Robert Silverton]

alot of what is being said about commanders is true. Here are the 5 things that are needed to be a successfull commander

1: the ability to come up with battle plans that are understood when explaned

2: The ability to listen to other ppls ideas and modify plans based on that input

3: The ability on the battlefield to change the plan bassed on the actual sittuation

4: The ability to understand when the battle is hopeless and leave the field instead of throwing more forces at it and hope it works.

5: The ability to inspire ppl to follow his orders.


6: while not needed but is greatly disired a group of ppl that can understand a battlefield situation. And have enough initive to explot a weakness without calling for permission. (as long as the objective is still being followed).
.

Edited by Robert Silverton, 02 February 2012 - 02:00 PM.

[CoffiNail]

Robert Silverton, on 02 February 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

alot of what is being said about commanders is true. Here are the 5 things that are needed to be a successfull commander.

is waiting for the 5 things?

[BabyCheesus]

A Wise Man once said: "You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til ya understand who's in ruttin' command here. "

Personally I like the commander and soldier relationship as it adds to the atmosphere and the roleplaying aspects of battletech. IMO, if people want to go lone wolf, they should've planned this out with the team (no 'I' in team) or go to Solaris.

[m0nk33]

BabyCheesus, on 02 February 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

IMO, if people want to go lone wolf, they should've planned this out with the team (no 'I' in team) or go to Solaris.

Please don't confuse lone wolf with loose cannon, not all of us plan to run around all willy nilly.

[Leetskeet]

tl;dr. scanned through it

Because you don't want an ***** playing a leader role giving people orders when he has no concept of tactics or strategy.

Typical 15 year old Call of Duty undesirable starts playing MWO, decides he wants to be a "commander". Yeah.

[CoffiNail]

Leetskeet, on 02 February 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

tl;dr. scanned through it

Because you don't want an ***** playing a leader role giving people orders when he has no concept of tactics or strategy.

Typical 15 year old Call of Duty undesirable starts playing MWO, decides he wants to be a "commander". Yeah.

TL;DR DEV reply was the Commander does not tell you what to do, short enough for you, quiaff?