5
We have a camp of players who happen to already be in a team environment. Maybe from WoW, or from LoL, WoT or whatever. Those teams always seems to have a command structure. At least from what I read here. This structure is for some units more firm then for others. That's were we get our first dispute.
Dispute 1: How strong should that Commander role be? How much control should he get over the actions of his team mates.
The second camp are "natural leaders". People who have a leadership role in real life or in some other games and maybe even do a damn good job there. These players could be strong leaders in MW:O as well. But, from what I have seen and experienced in my life, a good leader in one task, isn't always a good leader for another. Real life example: You may be a damn good leader of your Air Wing, but you can't grasp how to lead a platoon of foot soldiers into battle. It happens more often then some want to believe. That brings us to dispute number two.
Dispute 2: Should real life leaders, or those of other games, lead in MW:O as well?
Some here come with a real life military experience. What is possible in real life should be possible in a game as well, is their point of view. They know rank, they know structure, they know how to give/follow orders. Does this make them a better team? Maybe! They will form a strong structure pretty fast, but how adaptable are they?
I have seen that the armies of this world, most of the times, have a set way of doing things. There is no room to adapt on short notice and a single soldier, while told to act accordingly to what he believes is the right way, is trained to follow orders to the point. If you disrupt that order, they fall apart and become easy pickings. I have seen manouvers were the mighty U.S. Military (as one example out of many) lost in a training scenario because their way of doing things, the way they have learned to trust their equipment, training and orders given, led them into crushing defeats. I admit, that was some 20 years ago. But while the equipment might have gotten better, the way of training and thinking and believing in their supperiority has not. This leads us to ...
Dispute 3: Is their a right way of leading and is it true in every scenario we might come across?
Those are the three big questions I took from this discussion so far. But I missed a lot of other things.
I know for sure, that most of you are not leaders I want to follow. In fact I don't want to follow anyone except myself. I don't want to be pressed into a fixed group of players with a fixed structure. I want to play with and against as many other players as possible. I don't care if I win or lose. And I firmly believe this will be true for many other players as well. It would be a very lonesome experience, if such a massive game, like MW:O will hopefully be, turns into a "teams/groups/clans/corps only" game. Not everyone wants that and it shouldn't be forced on them, and such players should still be able to play what they want (house, merc or lone wolf). And I don't believe for one second, that the guys at PGI are this shortsighted to miss out on those players.
I want to play a game where a player with the commander role, knows how to handle the tools the game gives him in. Where the scout knows that he shouldn't be in an assault possition and where the defenders stay with their objective. But, I want to play in a game where I and everyone with me, can still do whatever they want, whenever they feel like it and adapt their roles the way they want them to.
If I happen to drop with a player that is specialised in the command role but sucks at it. So be it. I will not attack him for it, I will help him to become better, by giving him some advise from my point of view. If I happen to have a great commander and I suck at my role of scouting (or whatever I am doing that moment) I want him to do the same for me. I want everyone to get better over time in what they want to do. Not to force them into something they might want not.
So I came to the following answers to the disputes
one: The roles are tools at your dispersal not a structure set in stone, that you have to follow to the letter. They should open up possibilities, not restrictions.
two (this answer come in two seperate parts): (part one) Yes, if they want to. But they should never forget that there are more ways of leading then the one they like to employ. (part two) Leadership is not tied to the commander role at all.
three: No, because we are all different, and we all have different goals. In the game as well as in real life. What might work for one group/situation, could be disastrous for others.
You might find other answers for yourself.
Edit:
And Paul... it's up your sleeve!
Edited by Egomane, 03 February 2012 - 06:17 AM.
