Squad Leader Archive
Thread: FEEDBACK: The Group Leader Issue
Sylow
Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:42 am
#40
While this sounds like a nice scenario it's not what i experienced up to now. When more than one person is giving orders, they tend to evaluate the situation differently. This turns out to be catastrophic.
I mean, one leader orders the people to stay together, the second orders all to gather at the shuttleport, the third orders everybody to group up at the target base. Each of those orders by itself is very valid but if there is not clearly defined WHO of the three people who just issued the orders is the one who really has authority, it will lead to a few people stay at the shuttleport, a few move to the target base and a few others hanging with one or the other group or just forming up at some other random place where they can "stay together".
In effect, a small hostile team can eat them raw as the split up forces are not able to put up any resistance, would they all have stuck to only one order, no matter which of them, they would have been able to defend themself.
The only time i've ever seen delegation work was on a larger scale operation where one raid leader operated on a chat channel. He gave orders to "slicer group", the group of a guildmate of him (which was the slicers support group) and "all the rest". Basically the slice group did it's job, just called for help when needed. The "all the rest" was used as firepower to keep the defenders busy, had no other function than to pin them down and kill. (That's what you can use almost all players for. As soon as the command is to retreat from one fight to help at another place, many people find themselves unable to comply...)
The "support group" was the most dynamic unit on the field, when the slicers did well, they supported the firepower faction, when the slicer called for help, the support group moved into the base and helped covering the slicer. So, i agree that it CAN work, but experience tells that in most cases it will not work, and it also only did because of the scale of the battle.
There still was only one person in charge per group and groups worked as compact units. Would there have been more leaders, or even worse, self-declared wannabe-leaders in the groups, i am sure the situation would have turned out different.
willflynne
Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:49 am
#41
I see a couple possibilities as to the group leader debate:
1) Squad Leader as group leader is something veteran players are used to. It's how the profession has had to be played to this point, it works well and a lot of us are wondering why it's being changed. The best compromises seem to be some kind of chain of command and/or limiting the number of SL's in group if the buff stats stay as they are currently. Otherwise we have to deal with the swing of the all-powerful nerf bat.
2) A lot of people who are now more interested in the profession see the cries for keeping a SL as group leader as some desparate ploy to be control freaks. In a way I can understand that, but at the same time we can already see the potential problems with what was proposed. A lot of the veteran SL posters, more than anything else, want this profession to work well to enhance the groups they lead/group with. That's all. Having a SL in leader position and either reducing buff effectiveness for other SL's in group or limiting SL numbers in groups will make the profession better without overbalancing and calling down "NERF!" cries from other professions.
Ideally, I would love to see a couple things before this gets close to live:
* A dev explaining reasons for some of the SL changes that were made. Info never hurts. 
* Buff durations decreased. The reported durations so far seem too long, especially with how fast most combat situations are. We don't seem to need a 30 minute buff when 5-10 minutes would work just fine.
* Buffs removed upon leaving group. Should be a group benefit, nothing more.
* Something placed in the master box to make it worthwhile to master the profession. Already many good suggestions made about that.
I could go on, but I'd just be repeating the same things already stated by _scout_, sylow, kjfett and alienentity(and stated very well I might add). They've definitely got the experience edge on me for SL issues and concepts and I'm just glad when I can put forward a little something to help when I can.
Fellow Squad Leaders, I /salute you.
KJFett3
Tue Sep 06, 2005 7:21 am
#42
KardenTyrell wrote:
Reading between the lines will show the usage of squadleader and groupleaderabilites in this scenario
Funny, would seem just as easy to send a non GL back to get the help, while keeping the GL with the SL so that if anyone else showed up, the SLcouldadd them without a wait...and the commando could send a tell when he got near so that the SL could just /invite commando and be done with it. We have played this way for 2 years. Its not a problem, and it won't be "better" if it is changed.
Furthermore, I found your whole "scenerio" to be confusing as well...just trying to figure out what the 2 SLs where doing...it looked like conflicting orders to me. You might want to edit it to make more sense.
One yells to get under cover and the other in the next breath is yelling to concentrate fire on a target? Which is it? If you post proved anything, it proved that it is a bad idea, and that one SL should be in the group and should be the GL, not the other way around.
KJFett3
Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:06 am
#43
Assuck wrote:
Excuse me KJFett, but what's that little link in your sig?
Shhhh! don't let anyone see that...its the real definition of a leader, and whatmanyof us veiw the Squad Leader should be. If the rest found out about it...we would be doomed. 
KJFett3
Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:02 pm
#44
If it can't be followed the first time through, it is too confusing. Thanks for backing up my point.
KardenTyrell wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
KardenTyrell wrote:
Reading between the lines will show the usage of squadleader and groupleaderabilites in this scenario
Funny, would seem just as easy to send a non GL back to get the help, while keeping the GL with the SL so that if anyone else showed up, the SLcouldadd them without a wait...and the commando could send a tell when he got near so that the SL could just /invite commando and be done with it.
Midfight, that takes time. The added commando would immediatly know where to go as the groupwindow will show that.
We have played this way for 2 years. Its not a problem, and it won't be "better" if it is changed.
Furthermore, I found your whole "scenerio" to be confusing as well...just trying to figure out what the 2 SLs where doing...it looked like conflicting orders to me. You might want to edit it to make more sense.
If you read it again, you'll see they formed 2 flanks to attack from.
One yells to get under cover and the other in the next breath is yelling to concentrate fire on a target? Which is it? If you post proved anything, it proved that it is a bad idea, and that one SL should be in the group and should be the GL, not the other way around.
It didn't proove anything in what you had in mind, since you didn't get the scenario on your first read. Please read it again, and give imput again.
Just in case you missed it, around each line...you imagine the abilities the squadleader has at its disposal.
and no, /invite johnny doesn't take anymore time. At least not for those of us that have been doing this a while. You forget that many of us have effectively played this way for a while. We aren't some newbs projecting our thoughts and opinions into an issue. We are putting reality and facts into the issue....how? Because we can say "been there done that." Can you say the same about multi SLs in combat with none as GL? No. Your backing is purely hypothetical and not based on real working data. 
DiLune
Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:12 pm
#45
If the military used this model we'd have a few generals and nothing else but privates. That's what the scenario is about. There's probably a lieutenant (group leader) a sergeant (one SL) and a corporal (other SL) in that group. Whether or not the lieutenant is a squad leader its the sergeant and corporal keeping everyone focused on doing their jobs while the lieutenant directs the overall strategy. Even better if the Lt is a good leader (picked up SL for himself too.)
KJFett3
Tue Sep 06, 2005 1:19 pm
#46
DiLune wrote:
If the military used this model we'd have a few generals and nothing else but privates. That's what the scenario is about. There's probably a lieutenant (group leader) a sergeant (one SL) and a corporal (other SL) in that group. Whether or not the lieutenant is a squad leader its the sergeant and corporal keeping everyone focused on doing their jobs while the lieutenant directs the overall strategy. Even better if the Lt is a good leader (picked up SL for himself too.)
Well, lets just take that a step further. The proposed idea is like making everyone that wants to be a General just that. see many Squads incombatwith 8 Generals in them?
We are not looking at tactics used by Divisions or Armies. We are dealing with squad tactics here. You likely wouldnt even have a Lt. leading a squad. More likelyan NCO...if you are going to try to bring RL into thiswith Generals and privates and all....and Yes, a squad is the smallest unit in combat. It is most likely to only have one designated leader with the rest following orders. Not the same as a General and all grunts....because its a squad, not a Battalion. 
Iceovekan
Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:34 pm
#47
RE: Group Leader (GL) requirement.
You need to open up to new ideas. Just because this has always been the way things are is not necessarily the best.
Removing the Group Leader requirement is a great thing. It opens up CHOICES.
So, you want to be Group Leader - Go ahead, form your own group or demand the GL from the current GL.
If you don't want to be Group Leader - You also have the choice to do so.
Demanding that Group Leader is tied to our Master Squad Leader job is a detriment not an asset to our profession. Having Group Leader NOT tied to Squad Leader gives you the most flexibility.
So why restrict the requirement to be Group Leader? In fact every leader is also a follower. Like I said before Group Leader is merely an adiministrative job. It shouldn't be a _requirement_ for our skills to work. With the requirement gone, you CAN still be group leader. So I don't see why all the outcry.
-Ice
BadChef
Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:45 pm
#48
I'm nearly spent on explaining it to them so someone turn this guy above me towards a post where we've already explained it please.
_scout_
Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:04 pm
#49
Iceovekan wrote:
RE: Group Leader (GL) requirement.You need to open up to new ideas. Just because this has always been the way things are is not necessarily the best.Removing the Group Leader requirement is a great thing. It opens up CHOICES.So, you want to be Group Leader - Go ahead, form your own group or demand the GL from the current GL.If you don't want to be Group Leader - You also have the choice to do so.Demanding that Group Leader is tied to our Master Squad Leader job is a detriment not an asset to our profession. Having Group Leader NOT tied to Squad Leader gives you the most flexibility.So why restrict the requirement to be Group Leader? In fact every leader is also a follower. Like I said before Group Leader is merely an adiministrative job. It shouldn't be a _requirement_ for our skills to work. With the requirement gone, you CAN still be group leader. So I don't see why all the outcry.-Ice
Pls ready my reply to lechehombre
and read as well this post
I know this is linking is distracting and hard to follow but the numerous new posters in the squad leader forum have started to scatter the issue all over different threads circling around.
Its hard to follow the discussion which is going since the annoucement, since since then you had to follow close to 10 different threads to see and hear all arguments and especially the concerns of the forum squad leaders regarding this issue.
Sylow
Tue Sep 06, 2005 5:17 pm
#50
BadChef wrote:
I'm nearly spent on explaining it to them so someone turn this guy above me towards a post where we've already explained it please.
Do you really think that explaining to him a thirtyseventh time would make any difference? He's either a troll who wants to be on our nerves, or a powerplayer who is just looking for the maximum personal advantage by dabbling a bit in SL.
KardenTyrell
Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:03 pm
#51
KJFett3 wrote:
If it can't be followed the first time through, it is too confusing.To youThanks for backing up my point. No point made.
KardenTyrell wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
KardenTyrell wrote:
Reading between the lines will show the usage of squadleader and groupleaderabilites in this scenario
Funny, would seem just as easy to send a non GL back to get the help, while keeping the GL with the SL so that if anyone else showed up, the SLcouldadd them without a wait...and the commando could send a tell when he got near so that the SL could just /invite commando and be done with it.
Midfight, that takes time. The added commando would immediatly know where to go as the groupwindow will show that.
We have played this way for 2 years. Its not a problem, and it won't be "better" if it is changed.
Furthermore, I found your whole "scenerio" to be confusing as well...just trying to figure out what the 2 SLs where doing...it looked like conflicting orders to me. You might want to edit it to make more sense.
If you read it again, you'll see they formed 2 flanks to attack from.
One yells to get under cover and the other in the next breath is yelling to concentrate fire on a target? Which is it? If you post proved anything, it proved that it is a bad idea, and that one SL should be in the group and should be the GL, not the other way around.
It didn't proove anything in what you had in mind, since you didn't get the scenario on your first read. Please read it again, and give imput again.
Just in case you missed it, around each line...you imagine the abilities the squadleader has at its disposal.
and no, /invite johnny doesn't take anymore time. Mid engagement, groupmanagement, providing waypoints to the group for addingand leading the squad at the same time...DOES take more timethen when roles are split.At least not for those of us that have been doing this a while. You forget that many of us have effectively played this way for a while.Weither or not you've been doing it for a while, when you'remanaging group, you're not leading the squad. Time's spent.We aren't some newbs projecting our thoughts and opinions into an issue. I never claimed that, no need to stipulate on that. We are putting reality and facts into the issue....how? Because we can say "been there done that."reality and factsperception is different for each person, also why the discussion is raving in the first place.Can you say the same about multi SLs in combat with none as GL? No. Your backing is purely hypothetical and not based on real working data.
A hierachy inside the group will do some good for global effectiveness, though I should stipulate not to allow more then 2 working squadleaders at the timein one group.
KJFett3
Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:35 pm
#52
Then WTH are you arguing for. Almost everyone of us here has stated that while we do want to see one as a SL and that one be the GL, we would be willing to compromise if there was a way to have a max of only two. With one as the officer in the GL spot and another acting as NCO that is appointed by the SL/GL. This would have to be refined by the devs on how it works naturally. I personally would rather it be one as I already stated. I do not feel that a group of 8 is large enough for 2 full SLs. Back when we had groups of 20 I would have agreed. Heck. If they want to make it so that a MSL as GL gets 4 more spots in the group for a total of 12, I might even agree that 2 full SLs would be needed, but in a squad of 8, One is enough and one with an NCO for support is the most I beleive would work. Perhaps all of us have more common in the middle than we realize and are spending our time fighting on the edges.
KardenTyrell wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
If it can't be followed the first time through, it is too confusing.To youThanks for backing up my point. No point made.
KardenTyrell wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
KardenTyrell wrote:
Reading between the lines will show the usage of squadleader and groupleaderabilites in this scenario
Funny, would seem just as easy to send a non GL back to get the help, while keeping the GL with the SL so that if anyone else showed up, the SLcouldadd them without a wait...and the commando could send a tell when he got near so that the SL could just /invite commando and be done with it.
Midfight, that takes time. The added commando would immediatly know where to go as the groupwindow will show that.
We have played this way for 2 years. Its not a problem, and it won't be "better" if it is changed.
Furthermore, I found your whole "scenerio" to be confusing as well...just trying to figure out what the 2 SLs where doing...it looked like conflicting orders to me. You might want to edit it to make more sense.
If you read it again, you'll see they formed 2 flanks to attack from.
One yells to get under cover and the other in the next breath is yelling to concentrate fire on a target? Which is it? If you post proved anything, it proved that it is a bad idea, and that one SL should be in the group and should be the GL, not the other way around.
It didn't proove anything in what you had in mind, since you didn't get the scenario on your first read. Please read it again, and give imput again.
Just in case you missed it, around each line...you imagine the abilities the squadleader has at its disposal.
and no, /invite johnny doesn't take anymore time. Mid engagement, groupmanagement, providing waypoints to the group for addingand leading the squad at the same time...DOES take more timethen when roles are split.At least not for those of us that have been doing this a while. You forget that many of us have effectively played this way for a while.Weither or not you've been doing it for a while, when you'remanaging group, you're not leading the squad. Time's spent.We aren't some newbs projecting our thoughts and opinions into an issue. I never claimed that, no need to stipulate on that. We are putting reality and facts into the issue....how? Because we can say "been there done that."reality and factsperception is different for each person, also why the discussion is raving in the first place.Can you say the same about multi SLs in combat with none as GL? No. Your backing is purely hypothetical and not based on real working data.
A hierachy inside the group will do some good for global effectiveness, though I should stipulate not to allow more then 2 working squadleaders at the timein one group.