157 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Harrow, on 02 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

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...

Well, the next time you have an argument like that, could you please try to post it in the manner in which you've just applied this one? This explains your true intent behind that previous post, and I can't really disagree with it, while the previous post was actually inflammatory and sent at least two of us off in the direction you did not intend for us to go. And, yes, I do remember Shoot, Communicate, and Move on Out.

SilentObserver, on 02 February 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

... 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.

Okay, say you're one of my guys for a minute... what if, for the sake of the team, I instruct your Lance to move to Waypoint Alpha on a Northwesterly route, and you take a straight route or even Northeasterly? You come across an entire company of bad guys and they rip you to shreds. Now, not only have you disobeyed the original plan, but my adjustment to the plan, you've gotten yourself killed, which has lost resources for our unit, and you've alerted the enemy not only to your Lance's general position, but likely also given up the one ace in the hole we needed to win.

Oh, and falling back... your job is to hold the line, not fall back when you feel it's expedient, even if you have to sacrifice yourself until I can get your line reinforced, call in artillery, or get other elements into an ambush for the bad guys you're facing, now.

Just in those two careless sentences, you've lost two matches for me, straight out the chute. In MWO, if information is used correctly, and then you decide you're going to lone wolf it, you're going to end up causing problems for the rest of the element. Is that cool for you?

Quote

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.

That's how it's supposed to be, right?

Quote

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.

My dispute to this is, if I have better intel than you do, if I have a better view of the overall battlefield via the BattleGrid, if I tell, or ask you to go somewhere, it's because I have that better intel, that better view, and you need to trust me, or there's going to be an absolutely excellent amount of finger pointing, at you, and I'm just going to stand by and let it happen.

Look, I'm not asking everyone to follow my orders blindly, not in the least; I'm asking people to trust my decisions, because I am making the best possible decision I can based on circumstances, intel, and what's out the wind shield on my 'Mech, as well as my experience and the little bit of tactical prowess I have. When PGI said they wanted team-based gaming, that's what they meant. I'm also not telling my Lance Leaders that I intend to micromanage them at every turn, and we'll try to have the best possible strategy set up that we can to complete the mission and/or objective(s), but there will be important changes in the game.

[Nick Makiaveli]

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!

Leadership skills may carry over, so you might be good at motivating your merc corp members into being good members etc, but that doesn't mean you will be a good COMBAT leader. That's why I said "BATTLEFIELD" in my post.

I wasn't fired from my last leadership position, in fact when I left for my current job they tried to talk me into staying. But I am not deluding myself into believing that means I could lead a lance or two into combat.

[Threat Doc]

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

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. "

Tom Jane is not WISE... he's a moron with pistols, hehe... I really wish they would bring that series back, or another movie.

CoffiNail, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

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

Don't misquote, he said the Commander can not force anyone to do anything; he can tell them all he wants and, if they don't listen, and they lose, it falls on the team, not the Commander, although a good Commander will take it on themself, anyway, and then call for more training.

@Nick ~ No, being a leader does not mean you're a Combat Leader, not without training and experience, and there is no perfect leader when it comes to that. However, once you have the transferable leadership skills mixed in with the combat skills, you're then a combat leader.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 02 February 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Leetskeet]

CoffiNail, on 02 February 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

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

Interesting that you've twisted it to that point. He was very careful with his wording, but it's pretty clear that they tell you what to do. Seeing as this is a video game, their "orders" turn into "suggestions" because you're not going to get everyone to listen to you in a PUG match.

It's no different from a Scout or any other class telling you what to do, in an online video game with random people, it's nothing more than a suggestion, because most people likely will not care about what you're saying. They're going to run headfirst into the enemy if they want to.

The point of playing a Commander is to command and support. Whether or not people take what you say as a mere suggestion is up to the individual player.

[CoffiNail]

Well, the commander is giving suggestions, it is not telling you what to do, right?

Edited by CoffiNail, 02 February 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Kaemon]

Harrow, on 02 February 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

So you're saying the department head of an accounting department who has never seen a video game is going to be successful here?

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...

Actually Yes, if he possesses the skills to quickly adapt and become functional in the game mechanics, and has the ability to understand what is needed from a leader in this game.

That would be like saying only people with military experience will be good leaders here, will they be more effective at communication and tactical awareness? Probably, but if you really meet someone with solid leadership skills you'll be surprised how quickly they adapt to what's needed to succeed.

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.

But there is an M and an E and that spells ME!

m0nk33, on 02 February 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

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

You, good sir, are obviously not a scout, we willy nilly our ***** all over the place!

Edited by Kaemon, 02 February 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[BabyCheesus]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Tom Jane is not WISE... he's a moron with pistols, hehe... I really wish they would bring that series back, or another movie.

Yeah I wish they brought it back too. Also I meant the "Wise" part with sarcasm

So is friendly fire allowed? If I came across such an inept commander I'd do what the black widow does to those who break with the faith. Leave a hole in their rear tissue armor. Sorry, if that was inflammatory. In all honesty I would calmly try to discuss the situation with whomever is in command to try to survive and diffuse the situation. If that is not satisfactory, I'll probably vow to never play unless I know my team mates and their history.

Edited by BabyCheesus, 02 February 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Leetskeet]

CoffiNail, on 02 February 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Well, the commander is giving suggestions, it is not telling you what to do, right?

No, you didn't quite get it. A Commander is commanding. The point of the commander on the battlefield is to tell you what to do. In a random pick up group, Billy Shmoe may not particularly care that the commander wants him to stick with his teammates. He wants to go shoot stuff NOW. He looks at what the commander says as a suggestion, regardless of whether or not it was a command.

This was the point about not being able to "force your hand". It's an online game, and the best that a commander can do is try to organize people and tell them where they need to be. Some people are not going to listen. You might even get some inept 15 year old that no one is going to listen to in the first place. They can't FORCE you, but they're certainly COMMANDING you.

Edited by Leetskeet, 02 February 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[m0nk33]

Kaemon, on 02 February 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

You, good sir, are obviously not a scout, we willy nilly our ***** all over the place!

Absolutely true sir, but I willy nilly my *** off to the beat of whoever is in charge.

[Morashtak]

People want a good commander or someone who they can blame as previously said.

With that, here are a few rules for managers that I thought might have some bearing on being a good commander*;

• The energy of your command and the warriors in it starts with you. Be an energizing commander.
  
• Command is a warrior's job. Put your warriors first.
  
• Command is what you do with warriors, not to warriors.
  
• Walk your talk; back up your words with actions. Warriors believe what they see more than what they hear.
  
• Repeat the following at least once per day; "If it's to be, it begins with me."
  
• You gain power when you share power with your warriors.
  
• The best war sense is common sense.
  
• The best performance starts with clear goals.
  
• You get what you reward.
  
• The more mistakes you make, the closer you are to the correct answer.
  
• If you can't measure performance, you can't command it.
  
• Remember; It's not personal, it's war.
  
• If you don't like the way things are today, be patient. Everything will change tomorrow.
  
• Don't sweat the small stuff (it's all small stuff).
  
• The simple approach is often the best approach.
  
• Always ask: What do your warriors value, and how do they know they value it?

Commanders who cannot grasp a few of the preceding statements may only succeed through the skill of their warriors.




* with abject apologies to the publishers of Managing for Dummies®.

[Omigir]

SilentObserver, on 02 February 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Look up the original definition of fragging.

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

If only this could still be done

[MilitantMonk]

gregsolidus, on 02 February 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

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.

Absolutely! One great commander can make a team much better though.

[Harrow]

Kaemon, on 02 February 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Actually Yes, if he possesses the skills to quickly adapt and become functional in the game mechanics, and has the ability to understand what is needed from a leader in this game.

That would be like saying only people with military experience will be good leaders here, will they be more effective at communication and tactical awareness? Probably, but if you really meet someone with solid leadership skills you'll be surprised how quickly they adapt to what's needed to succeed.

I think you just missed my point, made my point, and moved on to what's the point all in one short paragraph. Again, yes, a natural leader in general can come in and adapt and be a good leader here. But the guy who already has a skillset more aligned to this type of environment and is a strong leader as well is going to be a more effective leader earlier on. And nothing surprises me...

[Joanna Conners]

I'll say again, the commander isn't always going to be the one giving orders. It can be useful for a team leader, but not every team even needs a leader. Some teams simply work together in perfect harmony, knowing exactly what to do without being told. Making intel available to these types of teams helps them react quickly and make decisions instinctively.

I'm old fashioned anyway. If I'm a team leader, then I'm on the front. I don't like leading from behind. If I'm in the "commander role" then I choose to abstain from leadership and direct information to my team and my team leader appropriately.

The point of the commander is to provide information. If the commander is in a leadership role is up to the players. Keep in mind no one is going to listen to a **** or someone who assumes a leadership role. You'll be doomed to fail.

Squads/Clans etc... will each have their own system worked out. For randomly associated players... I promise you there will be drama, stupidity, arrogance and a lot of lost matches when people try to start leading a team based on their role. Your best bet is simply to work together. You don't need one person telling you what to do to win. You need everyone performing their role and putting the team and the objective before themselves.

[Paul Inouye]

Garth Erlam, on 02 February 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

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.

My version had a lot more swearing in it.

A commander can sit there and issue really bad ideas, his team mates are going to see this and ignore his commands. The commander's key method of getting higher XP scores is by issuing orders that make sense and people will naturally follow them. A bad commander is going to be just that... a bad commander. There's nothing stopping you as a player from ignoring this type of commander. You know the type.. the one who kept dropping resupplies on his sniper buddy while everyone else got turned into meat.

I'm also thinking of a grading system but that is something I have to run by the big boss Bryan to see what he thinks of it. This way, even PUG commanders will have to know their role if they wish to succeed.

[m0nk33]

Paul Inouye, on 02 February 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

I'm also thinking of a grading system but that is something I have to run by the big boss Bryan to see what he thinks of it. This way, even PUG commanders will have to know their role if they wish to succeed.

I think that is a good idea, and I second the recommendation.

[Gremlich Johns]

Look to "The Art of War", a staple among Clansmen:

“If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.”
― Sun Tzu

However:

A leader is best when people barely know that he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him,
worst when they despise him. Fail to honor people, They fail to honor you.
But of a good leader, who talks little, when his work is done, his aims fulfilled, they will all say, "We did this ourselves."

― Sun Tzu

We in CBS aspire to this latter ideal especially. If we find members or candidates who cannot observe these maxims, they are dismissed.

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 02 February 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Threat Doc]

BabyCheesus, on 02 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

Yeah I wish they brought it back too. Also I meant the "Wise" part with sarcasm

Oh, I know... I apparently did not return the favor well enough, hehe.

Leetskeet, on 02 February 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

This was the point about not being able to "force your hand". It's an online game, and the best that a commander can do is try to organize people and tell them where they need to be. Some people are not going to listen. You might even get some inept 15 year old that no one is going to listen to in the first place. They can't FORCE you, but they're certainly COMMANDING you.

Precisely. No one's under contract to anyone else, nor are they being paid in real-world currency, so there's no trying to force anyone to do anything. A good commander will actually understand this and try to make it work to their advantage, get all psychological and such, so their people will not only do what the commander wants them to do, but will think it's their idea and go happily to complete the task at hand, hehe.

Morashtak, on 02 February 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

With that, here are a few rules for managers that I thought might have some bearing on being a good commander*;

• The more mistakes you make, the closer you are to the correct answer.
  
• Always ask: What do your warriors value, and how do they know they value it?

Commanders who cannot grasp a few of the preceding statements may only succeed through the skill of their warriors.

The first one is a humongous amen from me... those who don't understand that commanders make mistakes, and some of them all the time, the less likely they are to be satisfied with their commander. That second statement is something I've always kept in the back of my mind, but never really approach it more closely than that. If I'm open to people, and good to them, if not friendly, they will tell me what's going on and I can help them.

Demona, on 02 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

I'll say again, the commander isn't always going to be the one giving orders. It can be useful for a team leader, but not every team even needs a leader. Some teams simply work together in perfect harmony, knowing exactly what to do without being told. Making intel available to these types of teams helps them react quickly and make decisions instinctively.

Poppycock! Regardless of how well every single team shakes out, working so closely together it's scary, someone some time is going to need to make a decision, period, and that decision might be to leave a Lancemate behind to cover a retreat. Remember, no matter how good you are, there's always someone bigger, smarter, or faster than you are. I love the idea of having a team that can read one another as though they were in the same room and well-tuned, even though they're really hundreds or thousands of miles separated, and I've seen teams that are very very good, but never one without a leader. ALL groups have leaders, it's simply how we work, and there's no such thing as a group without one.

Quote

I'm old fashioned anyway. If I'm a team leader, then I'm on the front. I don't like leading from behind. If I'm in the "commander role" then I choose to abstain from leadership and direct information to my team and my team leader appropriately.

Let's see whose minds change when MWO launches?

[Psydotek]

Here's my qualifications: I have way too many hours playing Medic in Team Fortress 2 and have seen more than my share of victories and failures based on having good/bad commanders and teammates. (the reason I have so many Medic hours is mostly because people would rather play the other classes, I got stuck on Medic and found out I enjoyed it and was pretty good)

Unfortunately/fortunately in TF2 and in MWO it takes a decent while to learn the game mechanics or in the case if MWO to earn the mech/pilot skill points and modules. Chances are that if someone is rocking the proper command skills and modules it means they've put in the time and dealt with the crap and they'll be able to adequately direct the team (not always to victory but at least keep the team from flailing around like headless chickens).

[Aegis Kleais]

Psydotek, on 02 February 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

Here's my qualifications: I have way too many hours playing Medic in Team Fortress 2 and have seen more than my share of victories and failures based on having good/bad commanders and teammates. (the reason I have so many Medic hours is mostly because people would rather play the other classes, I got stuck on Medic and found out I enjoyed it and was pretty good)

Unfortunately/fortunately in TF2 and in MWO it takes a decent while to learn the game mechanics or in the case if MWO to earn the mech/pilot skill points and modules. Chances are that if someone is rocking the proper command skills and modules it means they've put in the time and dealt with the crap and they'll be able to adequately direct the team (not always to victory but at least keep the team from flailing around like headless chickens).

Off-Topic.
I had about 700 hours as a TF2 Medic and I HATED what that class basically became. It's not that it doesn't have abilities akin to command, but the class itself basically became a slave to his teammates. Because of his ineffective weapons, he become reliant on teammates for defense and was never capable of keeping himself alive.

Traditionally, in games that offer a Medic, they are able to do decent damage, understandably not the top damage dealers, but their unique role in healing helped to make them a powerful cog in the team war machine. Instead, as other class weapons become more and more powerful, the Medic (as prized and easy a kill as he is) had his weapons change next to nothing.

Though the TF2 Medic was a primary support role (a role type that is near and dear to me), it was only found later, via communication with Valve, that the reason why they chose to keep the Medic as he was is a result due to playtesting where players got angry at the Medic if he did anything BUT heal. (I'm sure you're aware of the 'Battle Medic' misnomer)

Needless to say, before I actually quit the game, I had put in about 250 more hours as Pyro which at least had support-like capabilities (reflects, dousing, etc.) coupled with weapons that at least allowed him to defend himself. And as a Pyro, sad as this was, I killed MANY a Medic whose teammate (who was, in a perfect world, supposed to protect that Medic) did nothing as I roasted them to death OVER and OVER.

You can't force a teammate to protect. Pubbers are all about their own KDR. Medics were seen as nothing more than free health; barked at for not doing what they were told and scolded at when choosing to fight for their own lives rather than to die with a healing gun in their hands while healing a teammate who didn't even realize (or care) that their Medic was being slaughtered.

....
..
.

After thinking about my experience as a TF2 Medic, I'm kind of glad there is no dedicated healer role in MechWarrior Online. It would ruin my experience with what has always been my favorite game IP.