Squad Leader Archive
Thread: What Should The New Name of Squad Leader Be?
IMO, the main reason that they are no longer restricting it to the group lead is because that would then limit many, many people that would want to pick up some Squad Leader.
i don't understand why it's such a hot button issue for everyone.
if you have experience in a dungeon or whatever, you'll still lead, if you don't then you wouldn't.
just being the "group leader" doesn't mean you lead the group. The one who knows exactly what to do leads the group and that is never the same person all the time.
take me and the DWB.
I am a jedi, i know that place like the back of my hand. if we had a squadleader from the guild who wanted to come, and say you needed to be groupleader to do stuff, doesn't matter if he is the groupleader, he'd still take MY orders since i'm the most experienced in any guild run on the place and no one else knows the map like i do.
just being the one who invites and kicks people doesn't mean you lead the group at all. by the same token, just beacause you don't have the (GL) next to your name doesn't mean you don't lead the group.
it just makes things easier IMO and theres no GOOD reason to have it any other way, exepting balance issues, which will probably be dealt with in other ways anyway.
Up to now i have not seen a single thought about balance in the complete concept. And if no balancing is done on foresight, we all know ho balancing is done as aftersight. I definitely don't want to experience that here... sure, we can't fall below the least played profession, since not played at all still holds the same rank, but that's no reason not to care.
[...]exepting balance issues, which will probably be dealt with in other ways anyway.
Message Edited by Sylow on 09-25-2005 05:14 AM
I can't beleive after all this time that folks are still rehashing the same tired argument that we're not even tryingdebate. Leader doesnt equal group leader, ok, we all know that and have known it and that's one of the basics I've seen on this forum for awhile now before all the born agains showed up, it's one of the first peices of advice I've seen given to new SL's. How many times do people like Sylow, scout, and others have to break it down before people actualy read through a post or two and understand that there is no debate over being group leader. There is only concern over balance and what we'l end up with a month or so down the road after the revamp hits.
The next genious to spit out this played out argument again like they're the first ones to bring this logic to light, atleast keep it short.
BadChef wrote:
I can't beleive after all this time that folks are still rehashing the same tired argument that we're not even tryingdebate. Leader doesnt equal group leader, ok, we all know that and have known it and that's one of the basics I've seen on this forum for awhile now before all the born agains showed up, it's one of the first peices of advice I've seen given to new SL's. How many times do people like Sylow, scout, and others have to break it down before people actualy read through a post or two and understand that there is no debate over being group leader. There is only concern over balance and what we'l end up with a month or so down the road after the revamp hits.
The next genious to spit out this played out argument again like they're the first ones to bring this logic to light, atleast keep it short.
BadChef wrote:
I can't beleive after all this time that folks are still rehashing the same tired argument that we're not even tryingdebate. Leader doesnt equal group leader, ok, we all know that and have known it and that's one of the basics I've seen on this forum for awhile now before all the born agains showed up, it's one of the first peices of advice I've seen given to new SL's. How many times do people like Sylow, scout, and others have to break it down before people actualy read through a post or two and understand that there is no debate over being group leader. There is only concern over balance and what we'l end up with a month or so down the road after the revamp hits.
The next genious to spit out this played out argument again like they're the first ones to bring this logic to light, atleast keep it short.
I actually trust the Devs to get balance right, eventually. Its the big picture questions that they are all mixed up on.
What kind of balance are you looking forward?
- The one where _one_ SL in group is balanced and if there are _eight_ youhave a massively overpowered group?
(Resulting in severe balance issues in PvP.) - The one where _eight_ SLs in one group are balanced and the effect of a _single_ SL is negligible?
(Means that SL is badly nerfed again and the MSL again is mostly useless, so the profession by itself gained nothing.)
- We "magically" remove stun and dizzy from the team.
- We "magically" increase accuracy and defence of the team.
- We "magically" increase damage inflicted on a target.
- We "magically" give the group terrain negotiation.
I actually see limited difference in functionality in the future... oki, we don't have passive bonuses any more, everything has to be activated, but this indeed decreases the level of "mysterious magic" involved in my eyes. (I currently convert the lazy couch-potatoe into a skilled freeclimber by just standing next to him in game... how more magical can it get? *grin*)
Thus the whole "magic" think actually interests me very little. The question if we will lead or not might already be of slightly bigger concern, but not because there is the _leader_ in the name.I worry a bit more aboutseveral people in the new design who decide to either lead or also only to use their limited SL abilities for their own advantage without caring for leadership at all. In this case, the team easily can be better off without an SL than with one of those people.... there is hope that incompetent leaders will be rooted out within limited time, but i don't really believe in that. The benefits for just dabbling in the new SL to improve yourself when being alonewill be (according to all we know at the moment)just too good for many people to skip them.
But even this is secondary in my eyes, balance itself is my primary concern.
Message Edited by Sylow on 09-29-2005 03:21 PM
jphillips1868 wrote:
We "magically" remove stun and dizzy from the team.
I focus my men constantly during combat to insure they are sure in their step and not caught off-guard.
We "magically" increase accuracy and defence of the team.
My men/women are inspired by my leadership and compeled to shoot more accuratly and fight more effeciantly under my command.
We "magically" increase damage inflicted on a target.
Because of the leadership shown in the above comment, my squad is able to more effectively concentrate its firepower on a target, allowing more of the damage to affect the target more quickly.
We "magically" give the group terrain negotiation.
I motivate my men by example and lead them across terrain in way that allows for more rapid transit across. (ie. they aren't all trudging through mud because i lead them around it at a faster pace)
That's all I will comment on....We are no mages nor doctors....we don't magically do anything.
Anyway, a few of the changes seem nice, but this "buff" for armour does indeed sound weird. I just don’t like the idea I have to go around buffing the group instead of the whole group at once.
Members are in a group with a Squad Leader; they should get the armour buff just being close to the said Squad Leader.
Also, what's this “we don't have to lead the squad anymore, even if we're the squad leader”? That has to change. I was great at leading my boling squads on Dantooine.
Changes:
(1) Squad Leader must lead the squad.
(2)a. Extra Squad Leaders can give extra buffs, but the group leader needs to be a Squad Leader.
(2)b. Better yet, one Squad Leader per group.
(3) Armour Buffs are not, in essence, cast, they are just applied being within 50m of the Squad Leader.
---
Whoa, sometimes I amaze myself. Look at how much better the profession is with those three small changes.
Message Edited by Dalponis on 09-30-2005 11:43 AM