Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader Revamp Looks Great... Not required to be a Group Leader is a _GOOD_ Thing!
AlienEntity wrote:
I personally agree that SL's need to be GL, this is also why imho there only needs to be one. It keeps down on the problems that may arise. Now I can understand why some of you want 2. I disagree with that, but that's my opinion. Even with 2, there can still be problems. Such as say Sylow and myself are in a group, who is the leader? That is where I still see the difficulty.
I am a little more leniant on the whole 2 SLs in a group thing, BUT (yeah, a big but) that is only if there are certainly rules in place that make it clear one is the lead and the other the "NCO". In several posts I have said that if they were to limit the NCO to using individual buffs only, that would be acceptable enough for me to allow a 2nd SL some viability...heck, they can take over full control if the leader gets killed for all I care, but I do not want to see both with the same powers. Naturally, the GL would be the CO. If neither SL is the GL, then neither would be able to use any buffs. One must be the GL for either to do their things.
Sylow wrote:
As I stated in a previous post, "squads" and "groups" in gameplay terms are not the same thing. A squad is nothing more than two or more players working directly together on a specific combat goal. If it helps, think of how the concept of a squad relates to guilds, or to players that are all within range of spatial chat, or to players who are all within one dungeon, or to players that have all joined the same chat channel. In other words, allmembers ofa squad could be part of the same guild, but not all members of that guild are necessarily members of that squad.[...]
What smokescreen are you trying to rise here? For your information, we are speaking of the profession squad leader, not of some philosophical discussion what a squad is or might be. We are speaking in terms of game mechanics and i am really sorry, while this sure is an interesting discussion, it has absolutely no context to the current issue of the SL revamp.
The reason I posted the above is that so many people keep posting that if a Squad Leader isn't the leader of the group than somehow he isn't leading a squad. I'll repeat it again... A squad and a group are not the same thing. Perhaps an in-game example will make it more clear. Let's say that eight players have grouped together and gone down into the Geonosian Biolab. Four of the players move into the lower part of the dungeon to kill the Acklay. The other four stay up near the enterance killing Geonosians. In that situation you have one group that has broken into two squads, and it would make perfect sense for there to be two squad leaders in that group who are both able to use their abilities. The only issue would be if the buffs actived by the SL in one group effect the players in the other group. I haven't had a chance to go onto test center and test it, but I'm hoping the buffs only effect group members that are nearby, similar to the way that area heals work.
Or how about another example... A guild wants to hold an XP grinding event one evening. A lot of guild members are going to attend, but they will be coming and going throughout the night. The organizer of the event takes on the role of group leader and then leaves his character next to the mission terminals so that he can easily add new players to the group when they show up. This group only has one combat squad in it, but the player who's handling the group administration duties isn't a part of that squad, and thus it would make perfect sense for one of the other players in the group to be a squad leader.
And how's this for a third example...A group of eight players get together for some PvP. When the PvP winds down, they all split up, however they stay grouped together so that they can keep chatting in group chat. One of the players goes and runs some BH missions. Another goes to do some crafting. The other six break off into three pairs to go look for some more PvP. Now you've got a group with multiple combat squads within it, and with a few players who aren't in squads at all. Such a group could have multiple squad leaders in it, each fully filling the role of a squad leader.
Note: None of these arguement are meant to address weather or not there's balance issues with the new SL system. The above arguements are all meant to address those who keep claiming that if a SL isn't a group leader then somehow he's not actually leading a squad.
Too many people seem to be of the opinion that if a person doesn't have real world leadership skills then he shouldn't be able to roleplay as a squad leader in the game.Look at it this way, I'm not a sniper in real life, and I have no knowledge of concealment tactics, however in-game I roleplay as a sniper and can use the /coverup skill to simulate my character using the concealment tactics that I know nothing of in real life.
Again i am sorry, but your comparison is not working well. The sniper you describe can be handled completely in terms if in-game mechanics. Good leadership always is a matter of the player behind the character.
You missed the point. There's two types of leadership. There's real world leadership, and there's roleplayed leadership. Let me give you an example...
Situation #1: A group of players are down in the DWB. They've been down there all day and the players behind the keyboards are starting to get fatigued, even though their characters in-game still have perfect health. One of the players makes a motivational speech in group chat and gets everyone's real world morale boosted enough to finish out the dungeon.
Situation #2: A group of players are down in the DWB. They've only been down there a short while, and all the players behind the keyboards are still pumped for action, however their characters in game are getting beat on pretty heavily by the MOBs there and they're all starting to run low on action and mind. A squad leader in the group activates his Boost Morale special in order to improve the situation.
The first situation is an example of real world leadership, and the second is an example of roleplayed leadership. The point I was trying to make originally is that just because a player doesn't have the real world skills necessary to make the motivational speach in situation #1, doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to do what the squad leader does in situation #2.
The squad leaders abilities are supposed to be the same sort of thing. I don't have any knowledge of how a squad should storm a fortification, or how to properly lay down suppresing fire during a retreat, or how to best pump up morale in the middle of a combat situation, and even if I did know all those things, the game most likely doesn't have the minute detail necessary for me to perform them directly.
If you really play an SL for some time, especially if you get involved into basebusting and PvP, you will learn what you have to order your people and how things work out. This doesn't mean that you have any knowledge on how to do it in real life, but in terms of in-game mechanics you will learn it quickly. Of course, this job can be done by a master tailor, too, in theory, but it somehow, i can't explain why, it matches better to the squad leader profession.
That's true, and under the new system, a SL that knows the ins and outs a base take downs can choose to utilize both his real world leadership skills and his in-game roleplayed leadership skills to effectively take down the base. However I don't see a reason why a SL who doesn't have the real world leadership skills shouldn't be able to still use his character's in-game roleplayed leadership skills. For example...
Imagine that a group of Imperial players are about to attack a group of rebel NPCs. The players have a squad leader in their group, but he's new to high end combat. A rifleman in the group who has been playing the game a long time and has good real world leadership skills has taken on the role of giving out instructions. The rifleman starts by talking out ofcharacter in group chat and telling the other players who they're all going to attack first, and he also tells the squad leader to activate Volley Fire and to Paint Target on the chosen NPC. The Squad Leader then shouts out in spatial "All right men! Let's move in. Everyone open fire on that guy over there." The Squad Leader hasn't used any real world leadership skills in this situation, but he's still playing the game as a Squad Leader in a perfectly valid manner. Now, granted, most players don't roleplay to that extreme. Most players don't signify when they're speaking out of character, and most are content to let the specials they select convey what their player is doing without having to add roleplaying dialog in spatial chat, but you get what I'm saying.
Instead all we have is some broadly defined special abilities. When a player triggers one of these squad leader abilities, we're supposed to imagine that the character he is roleplaying in game has done whatever actions would be necessary in the Starwars world to instruct thesquad on how to perform that specific task. Simply put, you're playing a character who's a squad leader, but that doesn't mean you yourself are a squad leader. A person who could never lead a squad in real life, should still be able to try to play one in the game if he wants. If you don't like playing with players who's characters are that different than their real life selfs, then you can choose not to group with them.
Your logic doesn't work out here. You see, this whole discussion is about the topic, if there should be several people doing their SL-mechanics, which apparently are more important and defining to you, than the actual leading.
No, my original post was a reply to the claim that a squad leader who isn't also group leader is somehow not leading his squad, and to the claim that a group with more than one squad leader in it can't represent realistic leadership. I've been trying to show that both those claims are BS, because a group can consist of multiple squads, and even contain members that aren't part of any squads.
The old design of squad leader basically allowed to be a buffbot, with the exception of volley fire. Keep up rally after CU, keep formup running before CU, thy to keep retreat on as much as you canat both times, much more you didn't have to do in terms of game mechanics. With the new design, leadership and commands are directly interconnected and this is definitely what we wanted and what i welcome very much. But you have to understand, if i now for example issue the retreat command, the team will not be able to fight in any way. The descriptions of the ability is very clear, no more regeneration of action or mind, but very fast movement speed. Do you really want to give such powerful commands into the hands of a random person in team?
Any player with an AOE attack can draw the agro of way more NPCs than a group can handle. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team? Any player can touch one of the access panels in the DWB can cause way more NPCs than the group can handle to spawn in around them. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team? Any player who has the job of healer in a group can just stop healing in the middle of a battle and let everyone die. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team?
Or how about we take your example and change it a bit... Any squad leader can use the Retreat command to stop everyone's regeneration of action and mind. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of someone who can't be kicked from the group?
I think you see the point I'm trying to make. I don't think its been demonstrated yet that an idiot squad leader can bring any more harm to a group than a host of other players. And furthmore, I don't think that its been demonstrated that by forcing a squad leader to also be group leader, you somehow lessen the chance of him doing stupid things that hamper the group. In fact, I'd go so far to say that forcing a squad leader into the group leader position will actually make it harder for a group to deal with idiot players. If your group is afraid of random people in the team doing stupid things, then what you want is a group leader who knows when someone needs to be kicked, and isn't afraid to do it when its necessary. If the person in your group who's most qualified to make those calls isn't a squad leader, then it would leave you more vulnerable then you'd otherwise be if you had to make the squad leader the group leader.
That all being said, the game still has a need for real world leadership skills, however those skills can't be approximated by skill boxes. A player either has those skills or he doesn't. When it comes to choosing who to have asa group leader, the traits you want are someone who's honest, fair, and understand the game system. Everything else is secondady. Its bad for the game to set up a system where players have to sometimes give up having an honest, fair group leader, just because they want to have a squad leader in the group. Now, I'm not trying to say that squad leaders are dishonest or anything, but a player who is playing as a squad leader has just as much chance of being dishonest, greedy, and vindictive as any other player out there.
As you copied this directly from another posting of yours, i will also directly copy my answer on it:
Now, i've heard that from you more than once, but it actually does nottouch the topic which is discussed here. We all know that there are people who don't have the profession in their build, who still can know very well what to do and can direct operations. I do the very same when i get into places i've never been before, i am the group leader, but if possible take somebody with knowledge of the area along to give necessary information.
I am also aware, that there can be people, and with the revamp comming, there certainly will be many of them, who grinded the profession but have no idea on how to actually lead.
But while i agree with your statement in both aspects, i also dare to say that this is a philosophical discussion about abilities of players behind the character and doesn't concern the workability of the profession at all. For me, the fact counts that as long as two SLs can give commands, especially if they are able to cancel out each others buffs or apply contradicting buffs (actually it's even worse if they don't cancel each other out), every John-Doe who spent some time just grind a small part of the profession has the potential to bring seriour turmoil to any team he joins and ruin any efficiency.
I agree with you, that for balance reasons it may be necessary to somehow limit how many SLs can be effective the members of a group at one time, however keep in mind that very little of this particular thread has been arguements about gameplay balance. There's basically two arguements going on in the SL forums over the revamp. One is over weather or not allowing multiple SLs in a group will be balanced, and one is over weather or not allowing multiple SLs in a group is true to the philosophy of what people think a squad leader should be. My post was only meant to address the second arguement, since that's the only arguement the person I responded to brought up.
Roles in the game that primarily need to be filled with players that have specific real world skills need to be kept seperate from any specific profession or skill boxes as much as possible.
So, the Squad Leader, in your eyes, really is best described as braindead buffbot, correct?
No, what I'm saying is that a player can play as a braindead buffbot if he wants. Just like a rifleman can play as a braindead killbot all he wants just by alternating between advanced critical and headshot, over and over. Or a doctor can play as a braindead healbot by just targetting one player in the group, typing in /follow, and then just hitting a heal everytime his cooldown timer wears off. In all the above situations, though, the person is going to be far less effective of a group member than he could be. From the looks of things, a squad leader in the new system is going to have a massive amount of potential to learn how to read whats happening to the players around him and then make the appropriate decisions on what buffs and abilities to use. What I fail to see though, is how letting a squad leader do those things without being the group leader will somehow dumb-down this potential, or how forcing a squad leader to be the group leader will somehow stop some SLs from being braindead buffbots?
I understand that there are plenty of gameplay balance arguements that may ultimately lead to groups being restricted to only one SL, however none of those arguements were brought up in the post I responded to,which iswhy my response contained the counter-arguements that it did.
As for the balance issues, I think the best solution would just be to limit it so that only two or possibly three SL group buffs can be active at the same time, and to also make sure that the buffs only affect group members that are within a certain distance from the SL. This would allow groups to have multiple SLs in it if they wanted, without getting over powered, while still leaving the grouping system and the squad leader system with the maximum amount of flexibility.
A lot of none-squad leaders are glad that SL is getting attention, but we don't want SL turned into some sort of puppetmaster proffession, and personally, I don't think it looks like the new system is going to be that. Bascially, under the new system, I can see squad leaders being broken down into two general types of players...
Reactive Squad Leaders: This player doesn't have good real world leadership skills, or he doesn't have knowledge of the specific dungeon or MOBs that his squad is trying to take on, however he does know a lot about how the varios squad leader skills work. He thus lets someone else call the shots on how to proceed through the specific content they are playing through, but whenever they get into combat he watches what's going on and then reacts to it by using the squad leader specials that best help thesquad deal with that combat.
Proactive Squad Leader: This player does have real world leadership skills, and he is familiar with the specific dungeon or MOBs that his squad is currently taking on. This player is also very familiar with how all the various squad leader skills work. He tells the squad how to proceed through the content at hand, and he uses the specials at his disposal to make the content respond in the way that he wants it to.
I get the impression that some people are opposed to players being able to play as the first type of squad leader, and that only the second type should be allowed. Personally I think there's room for both types.
Imaridril wrote:
Sylow wrote:
As I stated in a previous post, "squads" and "groups" in gameplay terms are not the same thing. A squad is nothing more than two or more players working directly together on a specific combat goal. If it helps, think of how the concept of a squad relates to guilds, or to players that are all within range of spatial chat, or to players who are all within one dungeon, or to players that have all joined the same chat channel. In other words, allmembers ofa squad could be part of the same guild, but not all members of that guild are necessarily members of that squad.[...]
What smokescreen are you trying to rise here? For your information, we are speaking of the profession squad leader, not of some philosophical discussion what a squad is or might be. We are speaking in terms of game mechanics and i am really sorry, while this sure is an interesting discussion, it has absolutely no context to the current issue of the SL revamp.
The reason I posted the above is that so many people keep posting that if a Squad Leader isn't the leader of the group than somehow he isn't leading a squad. I'll repeat it again... A squad and a group are not the same thing. Perhaps an in-game example will make it more clear. Let's say that eight players have grouped together and gone down into the Geonosian Biolab. Four of the players move into the lower part of the dungeon to kill the Acklay. The other four stay up near the enterance killing Geonosians. In that situation you have one group that has broken into two squads, and it would make perfect sense for there to be two squad leaders in that group who are both able to use their abilities. The only issue would be if the buffs actived by the SL in one group effect the players in the other group. I haven't had a chance to go onto test center and test it, but I'm hoping the buffs only effect group members that are nearby, similar to the way that area heals work.
Or how about another example... A guild wants to hold an XP grinding event one evening. A lot of guild members are going to attend, but they will be coming and going throughout the night. The organizer of the event takes on the role of group leader and then leaves his character next to the mission terminals so that he can easily add new players to the group when they show up. This group only has one combat squad in it, but the player who's handling the group administration duties isn't a part of that squad, and thus it would make perfect sense for one of the other players in the group to be a squad leader.
And how's this for a third example...A group of eight players get together for some PvP. When the PvP winds down, they all split up, however they stay grouped together so that they can keep chatting in group chat. One of the players goes and runs some BH missions. Another goes to do some crafting. The other six break off into three pairs to go look for some more PvP. Now you've got a group with multiple combat squads within it, and with a few players who aren't in squads at all. Such a group could have multiple squad leaders in it, each fully filling the role of a squad leader.
Note: None of these arguement are meant to address weather or not there's balance issues with the new SL system. The above arguements are all meant to address those who keep claiming that if a SL isn't a group leader then somehow he's not actually leading a squad.
Too many people seem to be of the opinion that if a person doesn't have real world leadership skills then he shouldn't be able to roleplay as a squad leader in the game.Look at it this way, I'm not a sniper in real life, and I have no knowledge of concealment tactics, however in-game I roleplay as a sniper and can use the /coverup skill to simulate my character using the concealment tactics that I know nothing of in real life.
Again i am sorry, but your comparison is not working well. The sniper you describe can be handled completely in terms if in-game mechanics. Good leadership always is a matter of the player behind the character.
You missed the point. There's two types of leadership. There's real world leadership, and there's roleplayed leadership. Let me give you an example...
Situation #1: A group of players are down in the DWB. They've been down there all day and the players behind the keyboards are starting to get fatigued, even though their characters in-game still have perfect health. One of the players makes a motivational speech in group chat and gets everyone's real world morale boosted enough to finish out the dungeon.
Situation #2: A group of players are down in the DWB. They've only been down there a short while, and all the players behind the keyboards are still pumped for action, however their characters in game are getting beat on pretty heavily by the MOBs there and they're all starting to run low on action and mind. A squad leader in the group activates his Boost Morale special in order to improve the situation.
The first situation is an example of real world leadership, and the second is an example of roleplayed leadership. The point I was trying to make originally is that just because a player doesn't have the real world skills necessary to make the motivational speach in situation #1, doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to do what the squad leader does in situation #2.
The squad leaders abilities are supposed to be the same sort of thing. I don't have any knowledge of how a squad should storm a fortification, or how to properly lay down suppresing fire during a retreat, or how to best pump up morale in the middle of a combat situation, and even if I did know all those things, the game most likely doesn't have the minute detail necessary for me to perform them directly.
If you really play an SL for some time, especially if you get involved into basebusting and PvP, you will learn what you have to order your people and how things work out. This doesn't mean that you have any knowledge on how to do it in real life, but in terms of in-game mechanics you will learn it quickly. Of course, this job can be done by a master tailor, too, in theory, but it somehow, i can't explain why, it matches better to the squad leader profession.
That's true, and under the new system, a SL that knows the ins and outs a base take downs can choose to utilize both his real world leadership skills and his in-game roleplayed leadership skills to effectively take down the base. However I don't see a reason why a SL who doesn't have the real world leadership skills shouldn't be able to still use his character's in-game roleplayed leadership skills. For example...
Imagine that a group of Imperial players are about to attack a group of rebel NPCs. The players have a squad leader in their group, but he's new to high end combat. A rifleman in the group who has been playing the game a long time and has good real world leadership skills has taken on the role of giving out instructions. The rifleman starts by talking out ofcharacter in group chat and telling the other players who they're all going to attack first, and he also tells the squad leader to activate Volley Fire and to Paint Target on the chosen NPC. The Squad Leader then shouts out in spatial "All right men! Let's move in. Everyone open fire on that guy over there." The Squad Leader hasn't used any real world leadership skills in this situation, but he's still playing the game as a Squad Leader in a perfectly valid manner. Now, granted, most players don't roleplay to that extreme. Most players don't signify when they're speaking out of character, and most are content to let the specials they select convey what their player is doing without having to add roleplaying dialog in spatial chat, but you get what I'm saying.
Instead all we have is some broadly defined special abilities. When a player triggers one of these squad leader abilities, we're supposed to imagine that the character he is roleplaying in game has done whatever actions would be necessary in the Starwars world to instruct thesquad on how to perform that specific task. Simply put, you're playing a character who's a squad leader, but that doesn't mean you yourself are a squad leader. A person who could never lead a squad in real life, should still be able to try to play one in the game if he wants. If you don't like playing with players who's characters are that different than their real life selfs, then you can choose not to group with them.
Your logic doesn't work out here. You see, this whole discussion is about the topic, if there should be several people doing their SL-mechanics, which apparently are more important and defining to you, than the actual leading.
No, my original post was a reply to the claim that a squad leader who isn't also group leader is somehow not leading his squad, and to the claim that a group with more than one squad leader in it can't represent realistic leadership. I've been trying to show that both those claims are BS, because a group can consist of multiple squads, and even contain members that aren't part of any squads.
The old design of squad leader basically allowed to be a buffbot, with the exception of volley fire. Keep up rally after CU, keep formup running before CU, thy to keep retreat on as much as you canat both times, much more you didn't have to do in terms of game mechanics. With the new design, leadership and commands are directly interconnected and this is definitely what we wanted and what i welcome very much. But you have to understand, if i now for example issue the retreat command, the team will not be able to fight in any way. The descriptions of the ability is very clear, no more regeneration of action or mind, but very fast movement speed. Do you really want to give such powerful commands into the hands of a random person in team?
Any player with an AOE attack can draw the agro of way more NPCs than a group can handle. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team? Any player can touch one of the access panels in the DWB can cause way more NPCs than the group can handle to spawn in around them. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team? Any player who has the job of healer in a group can just stop healing in the middle of a battle and let everyone die. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of a random person in a team?
Or how about we take your example and change it a bit... Any squad leader can use the Retreat command to stop everyone's regeneration of action and mind. Do you really want to put such power in the hands of someone who can't be kicked from the group?
I think you see the point I'm trying to make. I don't think its been demonstrated yet that an idiot squad leader can bring any more harm to a group than a host of other players. And furthmore, I don't think that its been demonstrated that by forcing a squad leader to also be group leader, you somehow lessen the chance of him doing stupid things that hamper the group. In fact, I'd go so far to say that forcing a squad leader into the group leader position will actually make it harder for a group to deal with idiot players. If your group is afraid of random people in the team doing stupid things, then what you want is a group leader who knows when someone needs to be kicked, and isn't afraid to do it when its necessary. If the person in your group who's most qualified to make those calls isn't a squad leader, then it would leave you more vulnerable then you'd otherwise be if you had to make the squad leader the group leader.
That all being said, the game still has a need for real world leadership skills, however those skills can't be approximated by skill boxes. A player either has those skills or he doesn't. When it comes to choosing who to have asa group leader, the traits you want are someone who's honest, fair, and understand the game system. Everything else is secondady. Its bad for the game to set up a system where players have to sometimes give up having an honest, fair group leader, just because they want to have a squad leader in the group. Now, I'm not trying to say that squad leaders are dishonest or anything, but a player who is playing as a squad leader has just as much chance of being dishonest, greedy, and vindictive as any other player out there.
As you copied this directly from another posting of yours, i will also directly copy my answer on it:
Now, i've heard that from you more than once, but it actually does nottouch the topic which is discussed here. We all know that there are people who don't have the profession in their build, who still can know very well what to do and can direct operations. I do the very same when i get into places i've never been before, i am the group leader, but if possible take somebody with knowledge of the area along to give necessary information.
I am also aware, that there can be people, and with the revamp comming, there certainly will be many of them, who grinded the profession but have no idea on how to actually lead.
But while i agree with your statement in both aspects, i also dare to say that this is a philosophical discussion about abilities of players behind the character and doesn't concern the workability of the profession at all. For me, the fact counts that as long as two SLs can give commands, especially if they are able to cancel out each others buffs or apply contradicting buffs (actually it's even worse if they don't cancel each other out), every John-Doe who spent some time just grind a small part of the profession has the potential to bring seriour turmoil to any team he joins and ruin any efficiency.
I agree with you, that for balance reasons it may be necessary to somehow limit how many SLs can be effective the members of a group at one time, however keep in mind that very little of this particular thread has been arguements about gameplay balance. There's basically two arguements going on in the SL forums over the revamp. One is over weather or not allowing multiple SLs in a group will be balanced, and one is over weather or not allowing multiple SLs in a group is true to the philosophy of what people think a squad leader should be. My post was only meant to address the second arguement, since that's the only arguement the person I responded to brought up.
Roles in the game that primarily need to be filled with players that have specific real world skills need to be kept seperate from any specific profession or skill boxes as much as possible.
So, the Squad Leader, in your eyes, really is best described as braindead buffbot, correct?
No, what I'm saying is that a player can play as a braindead buffbot if he wants. Just like a rifleman can play as a braindead killbot all he wants just by alternating between advanced critical and headshot, over and over. Or a doctor can play as a braindead healbot by just targetting one player in the group, typing in /follow, and then just hitting a heal everytime his cooldown timer wears off. In all the above situations, though, the person is going to be far less effective of a group member than he could be. From the looks of things, a squad leader in the new system is going to have a massive amount of potential to learn how to read whats happening to the players around him and then make the appropriate decisions on what buffs and abilities to use. What I fail to see though, is how letting a squad leader do those things without being the group leader will somehow dumb-down this potential, or how forcing a squad leader to be the group leader will somehow stop some SLs from being braindead buffbots?
I understand that there are plenty of gameplay balance arguements that may ultimately lead to groups being restricted to only one SL, however none of those arguements were brought up in the post I responded to,which iswhy my response contained the counter-arguements that it did.
As for the balance issues, I think the best solution would just be to limit it so that only two or possibly three SL group buffs can be active at the same time, and to also make sure that the buffs only affect group members that are within a certain distance from the SL. This would allow groups to have multiple SLs in it if they wanted, without getting over powered, while still leaving the grouping system and the squad leader system with the maximum amount of flexibility.
A lot of none-squad leaders are glad that SL is getting attention, but we don't want SL turned into some sort of puppetmaster proffession, and personally, I don't think it looks like the new system is going to be that. Bascially, under the new system, I can see squad leaders being broken down into two general types of players...
Reactive Squad Leaders: This player doesn't have good real world leadership skills, or he doesn't have knowledge of the specific dungeon or MOBs that his squad is trying to take on, however he does know a lot about how the varios squad leader skills work. He thus lets someone else call the shots on how to proceed through the specific content they are playing through, but whenever they get into combat he watches what's going on and then reacts to it by using the squad leader specials that best help thesquad deal with that combat.
Proactive Squad Leader: This player does have real world leadership skills, and he is familiar with the specific dungeon or MOBs that his squad is currently taking on. This player is also very familiar with how all the various squad leader skills work. He tells the squad how to proceed through the content at hand, and he uses the specials at his disposal to make the content respond in the way that he wants it to.
I get the impression that some people are opposed to players being able to play as the first type of squad leader, and that only the second type should be allowed. Personally I think there's room for both types.
MailekEOC wrote:
There is room forboth types, which is why SL should consist of the actual group squad leader and his/her chosen 2nd in command. If the 2nd in command is a master SL then he gets 2 buffs to toggle between and same goes for the leader who would be a master.
I don't think its right for non leader sls to get the ability to call a group burst run which would effectively make the group's action and mind go to nothing. What this would eventually cause is hatred towards squad leaders as a whole cause they are causing this and eventual nerfs of skills we have. Right now the system as for skill wise is excellent, its not everything we wanted but i'm sure all the long time vets are pleased.
Problem right now is the potential problems that will arise from certain abilities we have. In order to keep these abilities from being abused they must be in the hands of someone who has leadership over the group. If you wish to play reactive you still could, being under the command of the proactive sl.
I agree that there's potential for problems, but personally I don't think the risk is really that much greater than it is right now for other players to mess up a group. We've all been in groups where someone has drawn in a bunch of mobs that they shouldn't have and gotten the group killed, and we've all been in groups where someone who said they were going to be the healer didn't do a good job at all and ended up leaving everyone out to dry. Those events are unfortunate, but in the long run they're rare, and easily dealth with, and I don't see a problem from idiot SLs being any worse. Also, keep in mind that the only area where most players get into random, pickup groups is while XP grinding, and in such groups, a player getting everyone else killed is annoying, but not something that you can't recover from in only a couple minutes. As for dungeons and areas that involve more of a time commitment, its pretty rare that you get into a random group where no one has a clear idea of what everyone else will be doing or who's going to be calling the shots.
Now, I understand that for balance reasons, it might not work to have a lot of SLs in a group, however the leader plus NCO system isn't going to get added. Not because its a bad idea, but because I just can't see the devs taking the time to code it in. Remeber, this is SOE we're talking about. I'm amazed at what's in the SL revamp as it is.
What you described in example #2 was not an RP of leadership. It was a Bard, playing music to enhance his group. Give it to Musicians for all I care.
KJFett3 wrote:
There's two types of leadership. There's real world leadership, and there's roleplayed leadership. Let me give you an example...
You can't rollplay leadership. You either have it or you don't.
SquadLeaders lead groups. Squad Leaders shoud be the GL to use their abilities. You can go on for 5 pages otherwise and the facts still remain the same.
I can just as easily turn that arguement around on you and say that if we go by your definition of leadership, you can't get it from skillboxes. You either have it or your don't. And if that's the case, then what's the point of the whole squad leader revamp? If "leadership" can't be roleplayed, then lets just remove the whole squad leader proffession from the game and just give everyone the basic tools they need to be leader. Then those that have what it takes can get to "leading", and those that don't can stop pretending. Seriously, what do you want from the revamp? The squad leader proffessionis never going to be some sort of puppet master who can push other group members around like its some sort of real time strategy game. The devs have given us a revamp chock full of tools that will allow a squad leader with real world leadership skills to flourish, while at the same time allowing players who don't have real world leadership skills to still have fun.
Furthuremore, how does forcing the SL to be the group leader prevent players without real world leadership skills fromacting like bards? You do realize that the only thing you gain from becoming group leader is control over who's in a group and control of loot options. Neither of those abilities grant you any sort of real world leadership skills, and not having either of those abilities doesn't take away any of your real world leadership skills. I fail to see how weather or not a squad leader is also group leader has anything to do with weather or not he'll be acting like a bard. Oh, and for the record, Squad leaders lead squads, not groups.
Message Edited by Imaridril on 09-04-2005 11:56 PM
Also keep in mind that they have posted for feed back so they could potentially change the current way the system works. This is pre pub 24, the devs do have the skills to could something like the NCO thing. Would you rather have that or have us probably nerfed into the ground once ppl start to cry about are "over powered" abilties. It really sucks to see this community get divided like it has been these past few days as we were one of the best profession forums. The only way to limit the amount of buffs in a group is either having just 1 SL per group which leads or having an elected 2nd in command.
Imaridril wrote:
MailekEOC wrote:
There is room forboth types, which is why SL should consist of the actual group squad leader and his/her chosen 2nd in command. If the 2nd in command is a master SL then he gets 2 buffs to toggle between and same goes for the leader who would be a master.
I don't think its right for non leader sls to get the ability to call a group burst run which would effectively make the group's action and mind go to nothing. What this would eventually cause is hatred towards squad leaders as a whole cause they are causing this and eventual nerfs of skills we have. Right now the system as for skill wise is excellent, its not everything we wanted but i'm sure all the long time vets are pleased.
Problem right now is the potential problems that will arise from certain abilities we have. In order to keep these abilities from being abused they must be in the hands of someone who has leadership over the group. If you wish to play reactive you still could, being under the command of the proactive sl.
I agree that there's potential for problems, but personally I don't think the risk is really that much greater than it is right now for other players to mess up a group. We've all been in groups where someone has drawn in a bunch of mobs that they shouldn't have and gotten the group killed, and we've all been in groups where someone who said they were going to be the healer didn't do a good job at all and ended up leaving everyone out to dry. Those events are unfortunate, but in the long run they're rare, and easily dealth with, and I don't see a problem from idiot SLs being any worse. Also, keep in mind that the only area where most players get into random, pickup groups is while XP grinding, and in such groups, a player getting everyone else killed is annoying, but not something that you can't recover from in only a couple minutes. As for dungeons and areas that involve more of a time commitment, its pretty rare that you get into a random group where no one has a clear idea of what everyone else will be doing or who's going to be calling the shots.
Now, I understand that for balance reasons, it might not work to have a lot of SLs in a group, however the leader plus NCO system isn't going to get added. Not because its a bad idea, but because I just can't see the devs taking the time to code it in. Remeber, this is SOE we're talking about. I'm amazed at what's in the SL revamp as it is.
Imaridril wrote:
I can just as easily turn that arguement around on you and say that if we go by your definition of leadership, you can't get it from skillboxes. You either have it or your don't. And if that's the case, then what's the point of the whole squad leader revamp? If "leadership" can't be roleplayed, then lets just remove the whole squad leader proffession from the game and just give everyone the basic tools they need to be leader. Then those that have what it takes can get to "leading", and those that don't can stop pretending. Seriously, what do you want from the revamp? The squad leader proffessionis never going to be some sort of puppet master who can push other group members around like its some sort of real time strategy game. The devs have given us a revamp chock full of tools that will allow a squad leader with real world leadership skills to flourish, while at the same time allowing players who don't have real world leadership skills to still have fun.
KJFett3 wrote:
There's two types of leadership. There's real world leadership, and there's roleplayed leadership. Let me give you an example...
You can't rollplay leadership. You either have it or you don't.
SquadLeaders lead groups. Squad Leaders shoud be the GL to use their abilities. You can go on for 5 pages otherwise and the facts still remain the same.
Do a search on the forums for the old SL revamp stuff. In this we could have the ability to stop group combat, start group combat, sort our group into different formations which would have plus and down sides. This ultimately was shot down by most of the community. I personally liked a lot of the skills but then again we were considered "puppet masters" under that system. This new system is no where near what it was before.
The skills that i'm worried most about are the retreat and charge ones since these will effect the players whom can't control when this happens. An option would be to add in a window asking if you choose to accept this order but thats just stupid. If your squad leader issues a command you do it plain and simple.
MailekEOC wrote:
Also keep in mind that they have posted for feed back so they could potentially change the current way the system works. This is pre pub 24, the devs do have the skills to could something like the NCO thing. Would you rather have that or have us probably nerfed into the ground once ppl start to cry about are "over powered" abilties. It really sucks to see this community get divided like it has been these past few days as we were one of the best profession forums. The only way to limit the amount of buffs in a group is either having just 1 SL per group which leads or having an elected 2nd in command.
Imaridril wrote:
MailekEOC wrote:
There is room forboth types, which is why SL should consist of the actual group squad leader and his/her chosen 2nd in command. If the 2nd in command is a master SL then he gets 2 buffs to toggle between and same goes for the leader who would be a master.
I don't think its right for non leader sls to get the ability to call a group burst run which would effectively make the group's action and mind go to nothing. What this would eventually cause is hatred towards squad leaders as a whole cause they are causing this and eventual nerfs of skills we have. Right now the system as for skill wise is excellent, its not everything we wanted but i'm sure all the long time vets are pleased.
Problem right now is the potential problems that will arise from certain abilities we have. In order to keep these abilities from being abused they must be in the hands of someone who has leadership over the group. If you wish to play reactive you still could, being under the command of the proactive sl.
I agree that there's potential for problems, but personally I don't think the risk is really that much greater than it is right now for other players to mess up a group. We've all been in groups where someone has drawn in a bunch of mobs that they shouldn't have and gotten the group killed, and we've all been in groups where someone who said they were going to be the healer didn't do a good job at all and ended up leaving everyone out to dry. Those events are unfortunate, but in the long run they're rare, and easily dealth with, and I don't see a problem from idiot SLs being any worse. Also, keep in mind that the only area where most players get into random, pickup groups is while XP grinding, and in such groups, a player getting everyone else killed is annoying, but not something that you can't recover from in only a couple minutes. As for dungeons and areas that involve more of a time commitment, its pretty rare that you get into a random group where no one has a clear idea of what everyone else will be doing or who's going to be calling the shots.
Now, I understand that for balance reasons, it might not work to have a lot of SLs in a group, however the leader plus NCO system isn't going to get added. Not because its a bad idea, but because I just can't see the devs taking the time to code it in. Remeber, this is SOE we're talking about. I'm amazed at what's in the SL revamp as it is.
There's always a chance that the devs might add more, but frankly, they're track record has proven that they like to take the easy route on things. I might be mistaken, but I think I already read in another post that groups with multiple squad leaders already can't have more than one group buff active at the same time, so that right there gets rid of the biggest balance concern. The other issue is two or more squad leaders running specials that contradict or override each other. That might be a problem in pickup groups, but I don't see it being something that can't be handled with only a minor amount of communication. For example... two SLs are in a group, one says to the other, "I'll manage group buffs, you handle individual buffs. I'm also going to be giving content specific instructions to the group, so watch in-case I give you any specific commands." Now, some SLs won't be able to handle coordination such as that, but those SLs will quickly learn not to group with other SLs, and if they don't learn that, they'll find themself getting kicked from groups when they don't work together. Personally I'd rather leave more flexibility in so that groups that are able to work together can get the most out of the new system, rather than put in artificial restraits just to protect us from idiots.
Imaridril wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
There's two types of leadership. There's real world leadership, and there's roleplayed leadership. Let me give you an example...
You can't rollplay leadership. You either have it or you don't.
SquadLeaders lead groups. Squad Leaders shoud be the GL to use their abilities. You can go on for 5 pages otherwise and the facts still remain the same.
I can just as easily turn that arguement around on you and say that if we go by your definition of leadership, you can't get it from skillboxes. You either have it or your don't. And if that's the case, then what's the point of the whole squad leader revamp? If "leadership" can't be roleplayed, then lets just remove the whole squad leader proffession from the game and just give everyone the basic tools they need to be leader. Then those that have what it takes can get to "leading", and those that don't can stop pretending. Seriously, what do you want from the revamp? The squad leader proffessionis never going to be some sort of puppet master who can push other group members around like its some sort of real time strategy game. The devs have given us a revamp chock full of tools that will allow a squad leader with real world leadership skills to flourish, while at the same time allowing players who don't have real world leadership skills to still have fun.
Furthuremore, how does forcing the SL to be the group leader prevent players without real world leadership skills fromacting like bards? You do realize that the only thing you gain from becoming group leader is control over who's in a group and control of loot options. Neither of those abilities grant you any sort of real world leadership skills, and not having either of those abilities doesn't take away any of your real world leadership skills. I fail to see how weather or not a squad leader is also group leader has anything to do with weather or not he'll be acting like a bard. Oh, and for the record, Squad leaders lead squads, not groups.
Message Edited by Imaridril on 09-04-200511:56 PM
Currently SL is an organic profession. If you are not good at it you leave and find something you are good at. SL has always meant leader. This update removes that. It removes the neccesity of a SL of being a good leader.
Now SLs are:
- those who sacrifice for the good of the group
- bring leadership (because if they do not they are not given the lead)
- Sls are those who were dedicated to leadership and had people willing to follow because of who they were
Future (with current prepublish):
- A generic buffer - a doc by any other name - drawbacks that can cause backlashs if used wrong and if applied wrong by someone who does not understand leadership
- no requirements to be able to use the abilities grantedmeans that nonleaders will eventually just FOtM into the profession
Do you see what is being lost here? The previous method organically removed those unsuited to command of groups the new method just gives dangerous buff tools to any person without regard to consquences. I would say 90% of all SLs view themselves as leaders and not followers. They want the responsiblity and the drawbacks of being a leader. If they make a mistake they are willing to accept the consequences. The requirement of Group Leadership worked as a weeding out process. Those who stay SL are leaders - they have people willing to follow them or they would have moved on long ago to different professions.
Bad SLs never stayed SL long as they just did not get allowed to lead the group Good leaders were sought out.
I prefer to limit it to leadership for thosefeelings and also to prevent a backlash against all SLs. If a Good SL leads and forms groups people will join them. If a bad SL leads and forms groups eventually they will have to move to a different profession and play in the groups with a different role as people will not group under them.
If SLs don't lead the group a good sl will be allowed to join groups and help out. A bad SL will not be allowed to join a group period... Faster removal of players with the profession but it will cause a backlash against all SLs as they can sabotage entire groups
I would prefer limited positions in a squad rather then haveing our skills further nerfed because some idiot griefed someone using sl skills.
Leadership requires one person to lead. The idea that you can have a group leader and another person in the group who gives leadership will always lead to conflict and reduction of efficiency. You can not have two leaders.
Yeah, a pop-up window probably wouldn't work that great. I can see where your coming from on how some commands might be problimatic, I'm just don't have as pessemstic outlook on them as some. If I'm proven wrong, however, one possible solution would be to put in the slash command /ignoreOrder. The command could be set up that if a player uses it it automatically cancels any squad leader commands that he is currently being affected by. A player could then but that command up in his toolbar and if a squad leader does something dumb like activate retreat at the wrong moment, the effected players can just hit the /ignoreOrder button and get right back combat. Heck, they could also give squad leaders a /cancelAll command that they could use as a panic button incase they know they messed up and hit the wrong key by mistake or something.
The skills that i'm worried most about are the retreat and charge ones since these will effect the players whom can't control when this happens. An option would be to add in a window asking if you choose to accept this order but thats just stupid. If your squad leader issues a command you do it plain and simple.