Stue
Sep 15 2004, 10:06 PM
Hi,
this idea is about the marine team assigning someone the TACTICAL LEADER
.
Now you would say, they have the commander and he should be enough for that role. But i concurr. The commander is most of the time busy with base building, upgrading or thinking about the overall strategy.
The role of the tactical leader
now is RIGHT AT THE FRONT. He will preferably have voice comm enabled and direct the offense.
Most of the time when im playing NS, the commander gives the team a waypoint to rush a hive for example. So the team moves out to a stage point in front of the hive. But what now? The marines will try to attack the hive, but they will all follow their own strategy by default UNLESS someone in the team is giving suggestions/orders over voice comm. For example "Heavies guard the GLs. Jetpackers rush in and mess things up".
Now if there was a FORMAL TACTICAL LEADER
that everyone will have to respect and refer to, teamplay like that would ALWAYS be possible.
The person could be assigned by the commander (easiest way) or being elected by the whole team (takes more time).
I hope i was able to explain my idea well enough. I would really like to see this feature in game as it would greatly improve team-play and team organization. Also, this could be available for the alien team as well, maybe.
Avs
Sep 15 2004, 11:37 PM
During my experience in BFTG, this role is really really useful. However I fail to see a way to properly implement this in any less-organized way as opposed to the Sgt. position in BFTG.
I mean, unless the server is full of regulars, who all enjoy playing with one another, will they listen to a squad leader. Otherwise, if its a bunch of vets, rarely will you have any formal leadership, besides the covering, and other crap. With a bunch of newbs, I doubt they would enjoy the NS aspect of getting ordered around making the game seem more realistic than a bunch of guys running off like rambos.
Another problem is the fact that the commander still dishes out the strategy. So unless the squad leader is very bright, or knows exactly what the Comm wants, there might be order disputes. Like, the squad leader wants to take the node, but hte comm wants to siege it.
However you could always put the squad leader into the position of tactical use. He could direct fire, the nitty gritty stuff that occurs in the room, stuff the commander cant really dictate. But other than that I dont think the squad leader can achieve much more of anything else, except relaying information to the commander, and giving him suggestions (and hoping people listen to him). Also, the squad leader can only oversee a few marines at a time. This is because you need more than one squad usually taking ground on the map. This would mean you need 2 squad leaders, if you really want to make it efficient. But that causes voice spamming, and the fact that two squad leaders might disagree with each other, or cause problems for the commander.
I do like the idea though. Ive seen it in action many times and Ive seen it do wonders with rag tag marines. But that only applies to experienced leaders.
Zunni
Sep 16 2004, 12:56 AM
So who decides who is the squad leader?
And nothing stops a player from doing this without some special designation already..
I think Avs is dead-on about this one.. It works if the team playing has a need for that role, but it's not something that should be in NS by default.
krimson
Sep 16 2004, 05:58 PM
see. this was one of my suggestions about 3 days ago, and it recieved an instant "no more classes" and then locked. maybe i worded it poorly.
i thought the com could promote someone, but you couldnt get it unless you had a high number of kills, or low number of deaths, ot a good Kills:Deaths ratio.
he could have a different color armor, or hat, or a flag, or something, and maybe a boost in armor.
also, if the aliens kill him, they could be guaranteed 3 rfk or something.
a lot of people already assume this position, and when they do, the game seems to go better cause we all arent trying to figure our own stuff out, but achieve one goal (besides the obvious goal), so why not do some sort of "do good, get better" thing
Stue
Sep 16 2004, 06:14 PM
| QUOTE (Stue @ Sep 15 2004, 10:06 PM) |
| Now if there was a FORMAL TACTICAL LEADER that everyone will have to respect and refer to, teamplay like that would ALWAYS be possible. |
This is the point:
This means that NS itself would provide the feature. People would know WHO to listen to (for tactical coordination) and WHO to refer to as their tactical leader. It is not only the guy that talks most on voice comm and gives tactical orders, but its also the guy that has been explicitely designated by the commander. So for example, people who just joined know instantly who is coordinating the front offense.
The implementation:
Imagine the score board where is being displayed who is the commander. In the same way people would know who is the tactical leader.
The tactical leader should be assigned by the commander as he is highest in command and needs someone under him he can trust (i.e. dictatorship as strong leadership and no vague democracy). Technically, the TL can be assigned in comm view like assigning some player to a squad.
The tactical leader has no special interface like the commander. He plays the game in first person and this is what gives him a better overview and idea of the tactical situation which the commander can never have.
How the commander and TL will interact:
1. over voice comm
2. the commander is sending the team to move to/attack a waypoint. The TL will directly follow this order and tell people how to proceed to achieve the goal set by the commander.
3. the TL will give recommandations to the commander. For example "We need an obs at front, we got cloaked aliens everywhere."
4. in the case that the TL isnt doing what the commander wants, the comm just assigns another player the TL
To make it clear one more time:
This feature is something people can make use from but dont HAVE to. On some servers this will work great and improve teamplay, on others the commander might not be as strong and hence he might not assign someone the TL and/or the TL person itself isnt as strong (has no voice comm/has no clue/etc). But this doesnt make it a bad idea. The commander is a formal role too. And some commanders just dont have a clue either.
So what im saying is: People USE it or LEAVE it. Implementation of a TL feature should not be too hard. Giving people the possibility to use such a feature will make people rethink over time and tend towards USING it as well as possible. Also it gives certain people a whole new perspective for a "carreer". Some people are good leaders, but they suck at being commander (cant use the comm interface well enough for example). Some people are good with RTS playing but suck at tactical coordination. So here is the chance for two people to share the responsibility and work to make the team act more efficient.
I think there are enough servers out there that would make good use of such a role. And as i said before, if you make this an official formal feature, people will adept to it and (try to) use it.
@Avs
I think there shoudnt be more than ONE tactical leader and i dont think there is the need for more than one. As i said, a TL is important for coordinating the offense. And you hardly ever see a game with two or more seperate front lines. Of course there are situations when marines attack a hive and aliens attack the marine base. But defending the base is easy enough (coordination) so there is no TL needed.
7Bistromath
Sep 16 2004, 06:23 PM
People have been suggesting sergeants and field comms and whatever they wanted to call them since forever, not realizing that that's something that grows out of a social construct rather than code. Your Tactical Leader
idea is no different.
Why do you always have to put the
on there, by the way?
Stue
Sep 16 2004, 06:44 PM
| QUOTE (007Bistromath @ Sep 16 2004, 06:23 PM) |
People have been suggesting sergeants and field comms and whatever they wanted to call them since forever, not realizing that that's something that grows out of a social construct rather than code. Your Tactical Leader  idea is no different. |
Well my opinion on this is different.
You are correct that a person coordinating the tactic may grow out of social construct, but that isnt always the case.
There are often people that like to do so and they have the know-how for it. But they dont feel designated to to so because they might think some ppl wont listen to them or dont recognize them as the guy who is giving orders at the front. Now if they are explicitely designated as the tactical leader by the commander the team will have to respect and recognize them just like they respect the commander! This is my point. If he wears the TL tag (score board, special armor color, etc) he is a FORMAL OFFICER just like the commander. The commander gives orders, people follow or they lose. The tactical leader gives orders, people will follow or they lose.
Also sometimes there is the situation that TWO or more players feel the need to direct the fire and coordinate the front. In the case that they are giving different suggestions/orders to the team, the team will be confused. The one half will follow the 1st guy, the other the 2nd guy and this turns into confusion. If it is CLEAR to the team WHO is the TL they know who to follow and there is no confusion.
Also, the fact that this idea (in various forms) has been suggested many times before only shows, that the concept is infact popular and should not be ignored but be discussed. People can always come up with new arguments and ideas.
My point in one sentence: Formalize the tactical leader role.
krimson
Sep 16 2004, 07:13 PM
i think having it be in NS by default shouldnt automatically make it "have" to be used. it could be team chosen, it could be commander issued, but make it so that it cant just be abused.
at the beginning of the game, you could wait a few minutes to see who is someone of a stronger player, and who is using the voice com for other than screaming obsenities, or playing music, etc.
there may be a chance of favoratism, but sometimes that may be a good thing. a player knowing another player, and their strenghts/weaknesses could prove useful in deciding who gets this role.
it also could be something that promotes "not screwing around" if there are added benefits to the role.
have a voting system before its selected. there are voting systems set up for what chambers to drop first, ejecting the commander, the next maps, etc, i would think that something like this could fit in there just fine.
and, in the event of a tie, have the highest kills, or ratio be the determinant factor.
i think Stue is right in saying that even though it has been mentioned before, that should clue people in on the fact that it is something that interests people.
it would generally improve the notion of teamplay, and make people want to travel in groups. i remember back when comming was based on who did well, and you only recieved medpacks, and hmg/jp/etc when you got so many kills, or proved that you were useful and wouldnt waste the res. this is along the same lines. now coms just know when and who to drop things for, so that part seems to have just worked its way into the "norm" and, many people, especially beginners, would feel a little more comfortable following someone around to help them cover each other, learn the map, and just plain learn the game a little better than having people wander around immediately to RTs, and hives seperately, dying, losing the outpost, and wasting res.
and if people are concerned about having some sort of special abilities or quirks, i dont think abilities would be such a great idea, but just a small boost in stats, or maybe nothing at all, other than the notion that they need to be more careful, a better player because they are in a semi-leading role.
the_x5
Sep 16 2004, 07:15 PM
Field commander?...
Been suggested before.
Ghozer
Sep 16 2004, 07:19 PM
Dont really like this idea? This suggests that the "pro" and the "noob" be singled out and seperated as no one would want a noob for a tactical leader, as they dont know the game...
this would also encourage flaming, and laming, "im pro, im the tactical leader, do as i say........ blah blah blah blah blah...."
its a good idea in theory, but i dont feel its for NS really
Stue
Sep 16 2004, 07:32 PM
| QUOTE (Ghozer @ Sep 16 2004, 07:19 PM) |
Dont really like this idea? This suggests that the "pro" and the "noob" be singled out and seperated as no one would want a noob for a tactical leader, as they dont know the game...
this would also encourage flaming, and laming, "im pro, im the tactical leader, do as i say........ blah blah blah blah blah...."
its a good idea in theory, but i dont feel its for NS really |
In the case that the TL is abusing/exploiting his position, its the commanders responsibility to remove the role from him. The TL works UNDER the commander. The player playing the commander assigns the TL and if people dont like the TL its the commanders head that will roll, unless he intervenes appropriately. So if people dont like the TL and the commander doesnt care for them, the commander can be voted off and the TL will be removed alongside.
Also, if there is no person in the team that the commander would deam able to be the TL, then he will just OMIT the feature and play the game the traditional way. No problem with that.
Why do you think the idea is not for NS? Maybe because its a mod based on half-life, a quake-like FPS shooter, and a TL rather fits into the tactical shooter genre? Well, this might just be my opinion, but i think NS is supposed to be played in a tactical shooter manner, too.
| QUOTE |
| This idea promotes the fact that the comm has to single out a "single" player who wouldn't be listened to any more than the comm. The idea is the commander is the person who is in charge of the marines. Period. |
The idea also promotes the fact that the commander doesnt have the TACTICAL OVERVIEW of the situation as the players have who see the happening in first-person view. In my experience (i play since the mod was released) i have always had the feeling, that the commander doesnt have a clear idea of what exactly is happening on the battlefield. The commander view cannot replace the direct eye to eye contact between marines and aliens. Marine grunts usually give better suggestions on how to proceed than the commander.
The commander is in charge of the marines, and this wont change. He will just deligate the tactical coordination to someone working under him in rank.
| QUOTE |
I don't know how to put this many more ways, this will not be put in the game.
I'm sorry... |
Then a discussion would be useless from the start. I dont understand your persistence in this particular case.
But you might as well leave this thread open and see what arguments will come up and how this thread will develop...or if noone will reply and it will sink down the pages.
Ghozer
Sep 16 2004, 07:37 PM
I just dont think that sort of thing would fit into the feel of ns..
as for The comm assigning the TL and removing the TL... that then creates MORE work for the commander, hes gotta listen to the TL (what hes saying/doing) keep an eye on him, make sure he tells the TL what he wants him to do, and watch out for the TL flaming/abusing etc.. instead of doing what your original purpose was as-to reomve some of the duties from the commander, or rather "help" the commander so they could do other things such as upgrades etc.. it does NOT do this as i just explained
krimson
Sep 16 2004, 07:37 PM
i dont think this would be all that much grounds for flaming, and singleing out people any more than they already are. everyone calls everyone else noobs whether they are or not.
i guess this is just another attempt at helping the marines be more organized. i just cannot stand when there are 5 people voice comming different things, and nobody knows who to follow. this was just a way so people know WHO to follow.
i suppose you still have the option to not follow this person, but i would think that if the the com noticed this, they would then tend to lean away from that persons special requests once it becomes crunch time.
Ghozer
Sep 16 2004, 07:40 PM
again tho krimson -- i dont think it would change anything.. i think it would be left and never used, as you said, ppl would either just not listen to the TL in which case whats the point of one? or they would just be spamming voice comms as normal any ways..
the ONLY time i could see a TL being beneficial was in clan games, where These are mostly assigned any ways....
Stue
Sep 16 2004, 08:03 PM
| QUOTE |
| as for The comm assigning the TL and removing the TL... that then creates MORE work for the commander, hes gotta listen to the TL (what hes saying/doing) keep an eye on him, make sure he tells the TL what he wants him to do, and watch out for the TL flaming/abusing etc.. instead of doing what your original purpose was as-to reomve some of the duties from the commander, or rather "help" the commander so they could do other things such as upgrades etc.. it does NOT do this as i just explained |
Actually, the commander<->TL relation isnt all that complicated.
The commander doesnt have to constantly tell the TL what to do and the TL doesnt constantly have to give suggestions back to the commander. The TL can just follow the comm's orders by following the waypoint the comm sets. He then tells the other marines how to proceed. No need for the comm to tell the TL how to proceed. THATS what the TL is for!
| QUOTE |
| again tho krimson -- i dont think it would change anything.. i think it would be left and never used, as you said, ppl would either just not listen to the TL in which case whats the point of one? or they would just be spamming voice comms as normal any ways.. |
I think that really depends on what servers you play on.
There are pubs where everyday are different ppl on and theres no real strong community where ppl know and respect each other. In this case a TL might not have the necessary support to function efficiently. In this case just omit the feature and assign NO TL. On the other hand, it might HELP the loose bunch of grunts to get organized. I think most ppl are longing for some leadership that gets them organized on the field.
But then there are also pubs where there are everyday the same people, they know and respect each other. So they know who is a good comm and whos a good TL. New players on the server will instantly adept to the good comms and TLs because they follow the majority and see that the structure is working fine.
I think it may depend to a certain extend on which servers you play on regularly whether you can imagine the concept of a tactical leader or not and if you think it would work just great or very poorly. We need more different opinions on this i guess.
Sky
Sep 16 2004, 08:40 PM
The best players always order the other marines around, no matter if they're comming or in the field. I see no reason to designate one person a tactical commander or whatever, it'll just lead to people whining, "I WNANNA BE TEH TACTCOM!!!"
VampMaster
Sep 16 2004, 09:13 PM
I don't think there is a need for that.
In most organized games, there is someone who becomes a "self-imposed" tactical leader and he is usually well backed by the comm...
Zunni
Sep 16 2004, 09:15 PM
And in unorganized games, no-one listens anyway..
schkorpio
Sep 17 2004, 03:52 AM
| QUOTE (Stue @ Sep 15 2004, 05:06 PM) |
Now you would say, they have the commander and he should be enough for that role. But i concurr. The commander is most of the time busy with base building, upgrading or thinking about the overall strategy.
|
in that case i would be ejecting as any good come can multi task or should be able to keep an overview of the main strat in mind while base building, seriously the only has about 10 different structures.
I dont like the idea of a ground commander as the REAL comm sees everything thats happening while the ground commander does not, and infact its these self elected ground commanders which stuff up the main strat,
Avs
Sep 17 2004, 04:16 AM
You can be wrong in that sense. The ground comm can see things the field comm cannot! If you think otherwise, you've hadnt had the chance to see these two positions in action.
krimson
Sep 17 2004, 05:18 PM
^^ right.
and while we discuss the reasons why pugs dont ever listen, or follow orders or stick together, sometimes its because of things like this. people are unsure of whats happening, because they are new to the release, or unfamiliar with the servers rules, new maps, etc... why should the commander be required to lead, but also to teach people how to play.
Bait_Boy
Sep 17 2004, 11:08 PM
| QUOTE (5kyh16h91 @ Sep 16 2004, 03:40 PM) |
| The best players always order the other marines around, no matter if they're comming or in the field. I see no reason to designate one person a tactical commander or whatever, it'll just lead to people whining, "I WNANNA BE TEH TACTCOM!!!" |
No, Thank you, no responsibility for me today
This might work, might not, might frag all of us up the arse.
basically only time will tell
Drfuzzy
Sep 18 2004, 04:07 AM
Commander gives tactical leader access to x ammount of weapon storage (commander buys, leader can drop when hes ready) and would be REALLY good to get teamwork. No more bugging the commander for not giving things. The leader would see how the marine does on the ground more than the commander, therefore the leader can give weapons to those who deserve it, and not to the rambo nublets. Of course, the commander can still drop weapons, incase the leader goes afk or is not at base to drop weapons.
Also a small commander view (field computer?) for the leader would be cool, so you could drop weapons and check whats going on to get your troops moving.
But the weapons idea would be good, cause i know from experience that recycleing the armory means the noobs listen, so im sure they would listen to someone who wont give them guns untill they play right.
masterxaero
Sep 18 2004, 04:25 AM
The team leader could have a variety of different abilities.
Theres a game I used to play called Savage, which is an MMORGP game. Each team has a commander, much like the NS commander, and the commander can assign a certain number of players to be an "officer" (I think the commander can designate one officer for every 8 players on the team, i.e., if there are 8 or less players, the team gets one officer, if 9-15 players, then the team gets two officers, if 16-24 players, the team gets 3 officers, etc). The officer has a different skin, in the case of the Savage, he has a flag on his back, so players can easily identify him. The officer also had certain abilities.
First off, the officer could assign waypoints to the entire team. In Savage, the way this worked was, the officer would aim with his mouse to a spot he can see, hit a button (i think it was F or something), and it would set a waypoint for the entire team, exactly like a commander would be able to do. The commander could still set waypoints, except when the commander did it, a different voice for the officer and the commander, respectively, said "Move to your waypoint," so the team can tell who gave the order. The officer can even point at an enemy, hit the waypoint button, and "order" his teammate to attack it (this is very useful for marking highly evolved enemies). Now, it can be argued that that the officer can't give orders behind walls, because obviously he cannot see them. This is the case in Savage, and for the most part, nobody ever has any problems with it because its very easy to reassign waypoints.
Another ability the officer has is to heal players. In Savage, this was done just by melee attacking a teammate, and every four slashes, the teammate would gain like 5 HP. It's a very minor ability, and for the most part not used, but in NS one or two extra hitpoints could help if you just got injured.
Finally, in Savage, the officer slowly regenerated HP automatically. This, too, was minor, something like 1 HP every two or three seconds, but, again, this ability mostly goes unnoticed by the general Savage community, but it IS helpful if you're injurred.
I think an officer position would really help NS gameplay. The officer's main role would be able to coordinate the team in the field so the commander can get the base in order. This works extremely well in Savage. I'm not saying NS should completely emulate what Savage has done, but these are just some things to consider. Regardless, an officer position would be well receieved.
Stue
Sep 18 2004, 04:28 AM
| QUOTE (DR_FUZZY @ Sep 18 2004, 04:07 AM) |
| But the weapons idea would be good, cause i know from experience that recycleing the armory means the noobs listen, so im sure they would listen to someone who wont give them guns untill they play right. |
Lol, thats infact an interesting idea. I dont know if i like the idea that the TL has the power over weapon distribution (conflict comm<->TL) but you sure are right about the "no armory makes the nubs listen"
@ Masterxaero:
First i thought that having multiple officers (an appropriate term) would spam the voice comm too much if they all direct their squad via voice. But the idea about setting waypoints within sight for your squad sounds interesting indeed.
So imagine the commander assigning players into 3 squads. Then he assigned one of each squad the squad leader (officer). Then he gives the waypoint-orders to the squad leaders. And then the officers take over. They know they are to move to 3 different resource nodes. So the marine team now has 3 (+1) brains working instead of 1. For each individual case (res node) there is a leader to coordinate the proceeding. The officers will tell their squad when to hold position and defend and when to charge and take over the res node. When an officer has completed the task with his squad he can send a "mission completed" chat command to the commander.
This is how i can imagine how this could work. Im not saying id like multiple officers/leaders or not but this idea is interesting for sure.
masterxaero
Sep 18 2004, 05:14 AM
Personally, I think that it'd be a pain in the **** for a commander to have to pick players to be in a squad, assign an officer for the sqaud, and repeat the process up to 5 times. There simply isn't enough time. An alternate solution to this problem could be for the commander to specify whether or not the officer can order around just local players (that is, players near the officer), or the whole team.
Actually, scratch that. If there is only one officer, then he can order the entire team, if there is more than one, then they only order the people within range. Whadya think?
Legionnaired
Sep 18 2004, 05:31 AM
Yes to this idea.
I've commed several games to wins, where there was no leadership on the ground, and shotgun marches on the hive were slaughered by Lvl1 Skulks. I end up having to jump out of hte chair, and lead the team over to the hive myself, calling out people for welding and who should be covering who.
Allowing the commander to designate one person to do this would either be a useless feature, or make a world of difference and save a lot of headaches. There is nothing detrimental about it.
Avs
Sep 18 2004, 08:58 AM
I am telling you. Without a very mature community and experience in doing things like this, it will not work. The only reason why Ive seen this work, is because the guy "squad leading" was ranked like 5 times higher than all the privates and PFC and cpls around him, so they looked up to him in a RPG sense of way, which is why he had the control needed to lead and advise without any arguing and whining. I just dont see how this is going to work in pubs, pugs, and small 6v6 game CALs.
Next, the squad leader has to be damned good. Not just a good shooter or some ****. He has to be a good comm. He has to be able to think like a comm and kill skulks at the same time. And he has to prove it all within the first 2 minutes otherwise you'll have those "omg we have the sux comm" well, more like, "omg we have the sux tactical commander, lets not use squads". The reason why I saw it work was because the Sargents were developed over a month or so, so everyone under them got to know them, played with them, trained with them, etc. You dont get that kind of commitment and degree of social skill in games where people just come together and play (without anything to bond them).
AlienCow
Sep 18 2004, 02:29 PM
I love the idea, but hell, if no one listens to the Comm, why should they listen to a Comm AND a Tactical Leader
?
Some people would, some people wouldn't - but making this a formal position is pointless unless this "TL
" has an advantage over the normal 'rines. I can't think what exactly, other than more commands or something (a different menu, with more ability to communicate with the Comm and the grunts).
Not gonna happen, I don't think.
masterxaero
Sep 18 2004, 03:38 PM
No, you're all missing the point. The game isn't lost if the Marines don't have a stong officer (I think officer sounds better than tactical leader). The officer would just be an aide to the commander. Hell, the commander doesn't even have to issue officer status to anyone. For the most part, the position would just be an extra little something for the Marines team (and the aliens team if they can figure out how to do it). Trust me, it works in Savage, and it will definately work for NS.
TankBuster
Sep 18 2004, 10:04 PM
Maybe we're putting too much weight into the role of Tactical Leader. Let's make it a voluntary process or the commander can quietly select someone by giving his voice0over-com priority. There would be no official announcement, or icon over your head/name or anything like that. The com just selects the chatterbox with the best ideas and he gets voice over priority over the grunts, but not the commander. His voice name would show up, oh say, yellow.
So...
Commander - White
Tactical Leader - Yellow
Grunts - Blue
Avs
Sep 18 2004, 11:38 PM
| QUOTE (masterxaero @ Sep 18 2004, 10:38 AM) |
| No, you're all missing the point. The game isn't lost if the Marines don't have a stong officer (I think officer sounds better than tactical leader). The officer would just be an aide to the commander. Hell, the commander doesn't even have to issue officer status to anyone. For the most part, the position would just be an extra little something for the Marines team (and the aliens team if they can figure out how to do it). Trust me, it works in Savage, and it will definately work for NS. |
BFTG proves it can work only in well coordinated teams. We've used it in NS.
As for Tank's idea, yeah maybe that would work better.
Stue
Sep 19 2004, 01:38 AM
Whats the point of making the recognization of the TL as unobvious as possible? People need to know whos the TL or his role isnt working anyway. If youre making his voice display yellowish you dont have to hide his status from the scoreboard either.
Avs
Sep 19 2004, 06:03 AM
Well there is a difference.
On the scoreboard = aliens know (solve it by not showing it for aliens, though it wont matter anyways if you did), secondly and more importantly, it can be the cause of a lot of envy. Id so kill that marine for his TL sign!
His idea MIGHT work, your point is good though. I believe Tank suggested that alternative as a way of letting the commander have guys stand out more rather than truely appoint a TL. The commander gets to highlight ...say a few guys, so that they stand out more and people have the pseudo-CHOICE to listen to them (obviously they always have the choice to listen or not) except it stands out more, or ignore them completely. Im thinking its more of a half-step inbetween an actual TL and none at all.
But again, it does come down to the fact that will people respect or want to listen to that TL at any given time? Otherwise it wont work.
Stue
Sep 19 2004, 06:35 AM
Aliens dont see who is commander. At least not directly. So they also wont see who is TL.
I dont understand why envy would be such a problem. If you play on a server with a bunch of kiddies who constantly insult each other i can well imagine. But i dont play on such servers anyway. Where i play i think everyone is mature enough to respect whoever is the TL at the moment. After all, everybody wants organization. Not everybody is good enough to take the role of the TL. So whoever is envying the TL but has no clue of the TL's job is stupid to me.
Avs
Sep 19 2004, 09:17 AM
Nevermind...thats a psychological matter. Look at it this way: The commander position is respected enough mostly because you cant play without one. The TL position we've played without for years now, so implementing it doesnt mean its going to attract the same level of need and respect the commanding position has. This means that people wont take the position to the same level (without what Ive already mentioned) because its something that doesnt always have to be used to have a good efficient game. As for your comment about kiddies, not all adults feel like listening to some pro TL push them around all the time. In fact notice how a lot of kids (besides the few who just dont give a damn) listen and look up to adults. Its more that those with more developed and rational thought will go and question the TL and ignore their orders if they feel its bad or stupid or unecessary.
Ill agree though, MOST of us want organization when playing. Some of us want to just PLAY (see combat, and unorganized NS, and other examples of players having bad games because there is no teamwork). Yes, not everybody is good enough to take the role of TL. I can bet you right now less than half in the I/S boards are qualified to do it, let alone do it well. And you talk of envy as if it belonged only to 2 year olds when you see it all around you, all around NS, everywhere.
Koulnis
Jul 1 2005, 01:09 AM
*bump from nowhere*
I decxided to follow links that were going through 2 closed topics to find this one, seeing as how people are reposting this topic over and over again. This is almost a year old, so please review this topic and all prior discussions before replying, please.
I will be adding my own reply as soon as I have done the same.
SirSmokeALot
Jul 6 2005, 06:16 AM
You should implement it like this. Let's say the commander chooses a squad. It would be a normal squad like any other. The comm would select the squad, and then double click on the player he wants to be squad leader. Either that or there would be a squad leader button somewhere up there in the corner by the squads. Either it would work for each squad, having up to 5 squad leaders, or it could only work for squad 5, seeing how everyone likes that one. The squad leader can then give waypoints in the vacinity he's at, to anyone in his squad. If the commander wants a different squad leader, he'd either double click a single marine, and he's the new squad leader, or he'd click on the marine, and then click on the squad leader button which would be somewhere by the squads. This would take some pressure off of the commander if need be. This helps on large servers where you're under pressure. Some people wouldn't use it, as discussed earlier, but it would be helpful nontheless. People don't often use squads, but they can be helpful. This would expand upon a squad's helpfulness, and greatly promote teamwork.
DC_Darkling
Jul 6 2005, 11:55 AM
I like the idea, to be honest I already dub myself as tactical leader in many firefights.
But if you really are assaulting the hive, a comm really should also shout orders.. if only they'd listen
Sandstorm
Jul 6 2005, 02:43 PM
I'll see what I can recall from my Human Relations class, which was basically a type of introductory Business Management class. Anyway, the book listed two types of command hierarchies.
The traditional pyramid hierarchy is traditionally used to organize unskilled or semi-skilled labor. There's a large amount of management in the organization, simply because the average worker doesn't have a clue what to do on their own. The military also uses this.
The flattened-pyramid hierarchy is a more modern approach. The labor is skilled, usually with a college degree, and they can manage themselves. The workers also usually own stock in the company. Management's role is less important, as they are only called into play when issues between individual workers occur.
Currently, Classic resembles a flattened-pyramid. Most of the work is done by the labor, or Marine grunts in this case, and the Commander is in a support role, giving "optional" waypoints and orders. If all the Marines are highly-skilled and know what to do, this hierarchy works out very well. However, if all the Marines are NSPlayer, who don't have a clue about what to do, it falls apart.
Personally, I suggest giving the Commander the option to set up the hierarchy for the team. If his team is skilled, he can directly communicate with them. If his team is not skilled, he'll need to build layers of hierarchy to properly organize the team.
Of course, a form of discipline is always necessary if you REALLY want someone to listen to you. That's a completely different issue than the one in this thread.