Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader Revamp Looks Great... Not required to be a Group Leader is a _GOOD_ Thing!
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.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.
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
Message Edited by KJFett3 on 09-04-2005 10:38 PM
/ignoreOrder command?! WTH!?! I would personally have those soldiers pulled to the side and sent to the nearest cloner. No ifs, ands or buts about that. Those in the squad do as Squad Leader tells them to do. Not just for their own good, but for the good of the squad as a whole. I can clearly see from these comments why you have such a problem with our stance on SL. You clearly lack any kind of respect for leadership. To even suggest an /ignoreorder command. /GAH! /BAH! and every other / I can think of. I am sorry, but that just tossed out any form of arguement you have had up till now. I don't see how you expect any of us to take you seriously now.
Imaridril wrote:
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.
Ackehece wrote:
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.
I think you're exagerating what the SL proffession currently is. People don't leave the SL proffesion because they're not good leaders, and people don't stay in it because they are. People leave it because for the most part is a broken proffession and they realize that they can be just as effective of leader by switching to some other proffession, while at the same time picking up more skills that can actually help the group in combat. By the same token, people don't stay in SL right now because it gives them to tool to be a good leader. They stay in it because they have a devotion to the hope that SL might one day be revamped. Now, you can argue that the revamp isn't what you wanted, but I think you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that SL before the revamp was the home of leaders. I mean, I can't even think of the last time I was in a group where the person giving orders was a squad leader, and I definately can't think of a single time ever in the two years I've been playing where I've ever been in a group where someone has said "Gee, I wish the person giving us orders was a squad leader instead of a rifleman or doctor or Jedi." There's a reason why the squad leader proffession is dead. Its not because there's a lack of people who can lead. Its because it currently offers almost nothing to a would be leader except for a huge skillpoint sink. With the changes in the revamp, I can see a ton of players that I know that regularily lead as other proffessions switching to SL, because they'll now actually have some usefull, fun tools at their disposal.
As for SL grief, I don't see it happening an any meaningful scale. Right now the easiest way to sabatage a group is just to use an AOE attack and draw in a bunch of agro on the group, and seriously, when was the last time you were in a group where someone was doing that intentionaly. If someone really wants to greif a group, they're just going to go out there with their normal combat prof, start spamming fan shot or spray shot, and try to get the whole group killed. They're not going to take the time to grind out SL, just to get a few commands that are capable of inconviencing a group, and in some rare cases getting the group killed.
Pirates and mercenaries have leaders that don't share their leadership role. Those are bad examples to support your cause. Nym would be one example. Why don't you run over to Lok and ask him if he would be willing to turn over lead to anyone.
Imaridril wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
/ignoreOrder command?! WTH!?! I would personally have those soldiers pulled to the side and sent to the nearest cloner. No ifs, ands or buts about that. Those in the squad do as Squad Leader tells them to do. Not just for their own good, but for the good of the squad as a whole. I can clearly see from these comments why you have such a problem with our stance on SL. You clearly lack any kind of respect for leadership. To even suggest an /ignoreorder command. /GAH! /BAH! and every other / I can think of. I am sorry, but that just tossed out any form of arguement you have had up till now. I don't see how you expect any of us to take you seriously now.
Imaridril wrote:
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.
I think I see where your whole problem with the new system is now. You want other players to be your personal army, and you want all player combat with squad leaders to be forced into a specific militarized system. If that's how you want to play, there's nothing stopping you from finding seven other players who will let you be group leader while following every order you get, even when you make a mistake. However, what about the players who want to form a more informal pirate or mercenary type combat squad, where the "leader" constantly shifts depending on who has expertise on the challenge at hand, and "orders" given by the leader are treated more as suggestions? Not all groups in the real world are authoratative. There are numerous groups where there are no defined leaders, and decisions are made either through mutual aggreement or by members of the group defering judgement to those that they know have more knowledge concerning the specific issue at hand.
For an example that applies to the game at hand, take a look at ANH when the Falcon first lands in the Death Star. The heroes were all part of a squad, but through-out the time while they are there, Luke, Han, Obiwan, and Leia all took turns in the leadership role. The new SL system allows players to lead a squad in a wide variety of ways. You seem to want a system where players can only lead in the one way that you think is best.
.
KJFett3 wrote:
I think I see where your whole problem with the new system is now. You want other players to be your personal army, and you want all player combat with squad leaders to be forced into a specific militarized system. If that's how you want to play, there's nothing stopping you from finding seven other players who will let you be group leader while following every order you get, even when you make a mistake. However, what about the players who want to form a more informal pirate or mercenary type combat squad, where the "leader" constantly shifts depending on who has expertise on the challenge at hand, and "orders" given by the leader are treated more as suggestions? Not all groups in the real world are authoratative. There are numerous groups where there are no defined leaders, and decisions are made either through mutual aggreement or by members of the group defering judgement to those that they know have more knowledge concerning the specific issue at hand.
For an example that applies to the game at hand, take a look at ANH when the Falcon first lands in the Death Star. The heroes were all part of a squad, but through-out the time while they are there, Luke, Han, Obiwan, and Leia all took turns in the leadership role. The new SL system allows players to lead a squad in a wide variety of ways. You seem to want a system where players can only lead in the one way that you think is best.
Pirates and mercenaries have leaders that don't share their leadership role. Those are bad examples to support your cause. Nym would be one example. Why don't you run over to Lok and ask him if he would be willing to turn over lead to anyone.
Ok, if you don't like the terms "priate" or "mercenary", look at it this way. A group of adventurers that know how to handle themself in a fight have been travelling across the galaxy for quite a while. They've gotten to know each others strengths and weakness pretty well, and when they get into a situation, they instictively know who is best suited to start barking out orders based on the situation at hand. They're not a part of an organized military. They don't have any ranks that matter to each other. The only "punishment" for failing to follow an order is a loss of trust and a lack of friendship. None of them have any real authority over each other, however when circumstances call for it, they instinctively know when to defer leadership to a single group member, but at the same time, they also instinctively know when a situation isn't sever enough to warrent blindly following orders.
I would say that groups like the one I described about are fairly common in SWG. I've got friends in game who I hunt witha lot. We know what each others abilities are, and we can tell when one of us is in trouble. When the going gets rough and we know that we need to pull together more and that one of us needs to start coordinating the combat, we do so without one of us having to be set up in some predefined leadership role ahead of time. And by the same token, if we're in an easy fight and someone in the group is just going through the motions of calling out orders, we all know that its ok if we ignore those orders since the fight at hand isn't a real danger.
The SL revamp will allow squad leaders to participate in such agroup as the one I described above. You seem to want a system where a squad leader is only of use if the group is organized in a militarized fashion.
As for ANH, none of them were Squad Leaders.
You want a process where there is no Squad "leader", but rather a Squad "Bard".
I want a process where the Squad Leader is the Leader.
You didnt read my post!
.. copied from there:
So although your right groups are not squads, THEY SHOULD BE IT.
So from my point of view your wrong. GROUPS should be SQUADS, as in working toward one goal.
A group is NOT just another chat channel like a guildchat, it is MORE.
It offers tactical inforamtino about your the status and whereabout of your groupmates, it allows easy reszing and healing as well as the usage of a lot old squad leader commands toward the goal of the group as well as that it allows an assist command (VERY important).
Imaridril wrote:
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 .... Bad idea, keep your group together focus fire and you ll be faster doing it together
Or how about another example... AFK play I dont like it. Grinding Jedi? I dont like it either. You opinion, your example, suiteable, yes, a good argument, no.
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 Almost realistic, as soon as the four go for PvP disband and regroup to take the other - new players who want to PvP into the group or kick out those who arent there anymore, if they want to do something else, disband regroup. So again no valid argument. It just looks lazy.
Situation #1:
Situation #2:
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.
This is no arguement at all. Where is the problem with both either being groupleader or not groupleader? My smuggler is always doing the speeches. Again you didnt read my post
Quote:
RL and game are two different things yes, again ppl are using RL on both sides of the discussion. AS it should be like RL as well as the game can not be like RL. So in generally this argument works both ways, I try to avoid that.
So if your not a RL leader, but want to be squad leader, what should the profession do?
It should point you toward the things a RL squad leader would, LEAD.
How should the game do that?
By having multipl buff botts in a group? - NO
By putting you in the position to experience how it is to lead and to see what kind of responsibility it is ? - YES
You want to feel/play/roleplay you are a squad leader, so there you go TRY IT.
If somebody wants to tast chocolate ice, you dont give him strawberry just because its cold too.
For example...Imagine that a group of... The rifleman starts by talking out of character 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
Where does support your position of not having the squad leader to be groupleader? It doesnt. Does it support our side ? No it does not either.
What we are worried about is one SL issuing an attack, when suddenly a dabbler thinks retreat might be a good idea (what ever that may be that made him come to this idea) and suddenly all action and mind go to down to zero for the whole group, the CM just tossing a area heal to kee the tanks alive, fail, and everyone is dead.
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.
My problem with two non group leader squad leaders in one group leader is there is no chain of command! Having one being the groupleader would clarify that.
You re examples are close but never grab the scope of it, you always forgot that there are other boundary conditions to it. Somewhere you mention that you play a lot with your friends THAT is a pretty CLOSE environment in that you play, your friendship your knowledge about each other as well as your knowledge about their profession give your group a chain of command, your know not to hit what your smugglers hits, because he dazes them.
Now in an open environment where there come and go ppl you DONT KNOW and DONT KNOW HOW THEY PLAY you suddenly have two very expirienced MSL in one group, they dont know each other but get into trouble now while one thinks a frontal assault with the group will get them out of the trouble (eg. you), since you used to play with ppl who are good calls a charge but on the same time an other MSL who knows that is a very risky tactic calls for a regroup and retreat? Now what, two different buffs flare up, the second MSL who got into the group doesnt even knew there was another MSL in his group since both dont use ther MSL to avaid being targetd by the opposing faction. Result: POOF All DEAD.
... 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
Thats why we want those powers limited to the groupleader. The difference between the commando and the squad leader is the commando does something stupid with his weapon and the aggro, the SL would TAKE ALL YOUR MIND AND ACTION TO ZERO AFFECTING YOUR CHARACTER, TAKING AWAY ANY OPTION YOU WOULD HAVE. That is the difference between the SL and the commando. If the commando messes up you still can heal yourself and fight, if the Squad leader messes up, you cant, you die - clone.
It wont be harderd with Squad leaders to be groupleaders to play, read what ackehead wrote, BAD squad leaders nobody will group with anymore, when they are group leaders, that easy, but if he doesnt need to be groupleader he always can pull that stunt and you dont have control of what some dabbler might do
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?
this is not the scenario some of old time forum squad leaders are discussing, we are talking about multiplesquad leaders within a group non of them being the group leader so there is no chain of command.
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.
there we have our compromise, but why not use already existing game mechanics like being the groupleader of a group, one or reasons to have the squad leader being group leader is that in that case the MSL as groupleader can choose his second in command
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 the squad 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.
When im lazy im the reactive squad leader, but where is the problem of me being groupleader? As I mentioned in an former example I had base raids where my MBE was calling targets and tactics while i just was the "sergant" kicking everybodys butt into the direction she wanted?
In fact there is no problem with switching the groupleader ship, as it doesnt give you any leader ship skills beyond your skill set but it allows a chain of command when you need one. Hence my strong stance the squad leader needs to be the gorupleader
Darn you write too much at one
hard to comment on that ...
EDIT
Imaridril wrote:No, you want a process where the Squad Leader is also the Group Leader. How this turns a Squad Leader into an actual leader is beyond me. If my process results in Squad "Bards", then your's does, too. Being able to kick people and being able to control loot settings doesn't change that.
No we want a CHAIN OF COMMAND within the system with game mechanis which are already there. namely the groupleader ship as being first officer and as you stated yourself already, a way to APPOINT a second in command if needed. Your keep missing the point.
You already said it yourself we need to, WE NEED CERTAIN LIMITATIONS to the numbers of squad leaders and what they can do and we want to TIE THAT TO THE GROUPLEADE SHIP as well as the Master squad leader box
Message Edited by _scout_ on 09-05-2005 11:30 AM
Ok, if you don't like the terms "priate" or "mercenary", look at it this way. A group of adventurers that know how to handle themself in a fight have been travelling across the galaxy for quite a while. They've gotten to know each others strengths and weakness pretty well, and when they get into a situation, they instictively know who is best suited to start barking out orders based on the situation at hand. They're not a part of an organized military. They don't have any ranks that matter to each other. The only "punishment" for failing to follow an order is a loss of trust and a lack of friendship. None of them have any real authority over each other, however when circumstances call for it, they instinctively know when to defer leadership to a single group member, but at the same time, they also instinctively know when a situation isn't sever enough to warrent blindly following orders.
I think you somehow miss some small details here... for example, did you ever hear of a pirate captain? Cross him and you walk the plank. Also, don't tell me that mercenaries don't have a military structure. A mercenary unit has a leader (and some small staff) and a bigger number of regulars. (Also called "grunts".)
Actually, from a historical point of view, any mercenary unit with any repotation and battle success was also reputated of having even clearer structures and more draconical punishments for falling out of line than the regular units of the same historical period. I recall an exception where a small mercenary unit during some war some centuries ago (i think it was the 30 years war) made some reputation without that, but historians generally agree that the unit had the kind of luck to get lost and pure chance turn up at the right place.
If you want to have more detail on how things, in the civilized present time, are handled in terms of mercenaries, inform yourself about the french foreign legion, that's the biggest mercenary group around that i know of. From all info i have, those people would considerdrill camp at US Special Forces to be vacations.
wow there is no way i can read all that, i want to log in.
anyone want to sum it up for me? it looks like everyone thats playing squadleader currently except for a few agree that the SL should have to be the GL with the possible compromise that there be one other for individual buffs? and... some non squad leaders want us to all form together into one SL army? why do people so adimantly want this?
and the point some SL are making about not being the leader of the group and not using your skills currently. why are you not group leader? why is this a problem?
/g hey guys, i'm master squadleader. wanna make me gl so we can use all these great bonuses?
i've never had anyone say no. usually they say: wow awesome!
i'm so impressed that the devs actually took some of the communities ideas and implemented them. but when did anyone ever suggest multiple SL in one group? you think they would've just did the platoon idea. there were 0 nay sayers on that one.
this part is more of a rant, but, the squad leader community is trying to nerf themseleves! what other proffesion would beg the devs to tone it down a bit so they are not overpowered? and who would argue with them? mind blowing.
_scout_ wrote:
No we want a CHAIN OF COMMAND within the system with game mechanis which are already there. namely the groupleader ship as being first officer and as you stated yourself already, a way to APPOINT a second in command if needed. Your keep missing the point.
Imaridril wrote:
No, you want a process where the Squad Leader is also the Group Leader. How this turns a Squad Leader into an actual leader is beyond me. If my process results in Squad "Bards", then your's does, too. Being able to kick people and being able to control loot settings doesn't change that.
You already said it yourself we need to, WE NEED CERTAIN LIMITATIONS to the numbers of squad leaders and what they can do and we want to TIE THAT TO THE GROUPLEADE SHIP as well as the Master squad leader box
But you've missed the point of my entire post. In the new system there's nothing stopping you from having the type of chain of command you say you want. In the new system, if you're a squad leader who wants to also be the group leader, guess what, you can. All you have to do is start your own group, or join a new group and say "hey, canI be group leader." And if you then want to have a second in command, there's nothing stopping you from doing that either. All you have to do is send a /tell to the other SL in your group and say "hey, I'm gonna be calling the shots and handling the group buffs. Try not to interfere with my specials, and watch me for orders." If you can't get the other SL to cooperate with you, either you kick him from the group, or you ask the group leader to kick him from the group. Seriously, its not that hard to do. Chaining roots, deciding who does knockdowns, picking out targets, deciding who tanks, managing AOE attacks, handling heals, deciding when to rest and when to move, are all things that groups have been able to handle just fine without the need for a built in chain of command system. And for two years now, players have been effectively leading teams through PvE and PvP combat situations without having to be the group leader. What I don't get is why you squad leaders think the world is going to end if you actually have to use communication and real world leadership skills to make your group work together.
Now, don't get me wrong, I've said in several other posts already that for gameplay balance purposes it may be necessary to limit how many group buffs can be active at one time, and that there's a possibiliy that the only viable solution will be to tie SL to the group leader position, however, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD HAS BEEN ABOUT. This thread has been about the arguement that if a squad leaderin the game doesn't have absolute authority over his group and if he doesn't have some sort of hand-of-god system that forces everyone to do what he wants, then somehow he's not really a leader. And frankly, I think that arguement is BS. If you want to argue about this from a gameplay balance perspective, fine. I agree with you. There needs to be limits on how many group buffs can be active at one time, however people can't keep making philosophical arguements about what a "real" squad should be, and then tack on some game balance stuff at the end as if its proof of their philosophical opinions.
As to the post that you linked to, yes, I had read it before. I didn't respond however becauseI didn't feel it addressed the arguement we were having. You say "GROUPS should be SQUADS." Fine. Do that. There's nothing stopping you from running your entire group as an eight man squad. The point I've been trying to make however, is "how is it bad for the game if players have the option of running a group as several smaller squads or as one large squad?" (This is assuming that there will be some mechanism that prevents stacking of too many group buffs.) Why do you care if some players want to run their groups in a different manner? If you're afraid that such groups will be too overpowered, then say so, and we can discuss various balance solutions, but its circular to say "groups should be sqauds, therefore groups should be squads."
"Ohh and Group Leader is a roll designed to manage players. You manage who is in and out of the group andhow loot is handled. Both have an impact on managing players."
Did you mean to write that? Because that's what I'm saying... Group Leader is a role for managing players. Do you know the distinction I'm making between 'player' and 'character'?
And please...there's zero need to copy/paste dictionaries. I'm aquainted with the words.
[edited to add...]
One way you may look at the difference between 'squad' and 'group' is that a squad is always a group. A group is not always a squad.
Semantics aside, I would fully support a method of advancement for the SL profession that measured the quality of leadership ability. I can't see justification for an system where 'leadership' is based things like which "players" form a group and how the loot is split, because... I don't see either of those 'player' functions as a proper metric for leadership ability over 'characters' in the game.
[edited to add...more]
Perhaps a different topic, or at least a more constructive one, might be to brainstorm on how to measure leadership ability inside the SWG game. Just off the top of my head... Would character incap/death be a valid metric of the overall leadership of that 'squad'? If so, should SLs lose "Leadership XP"? What makes a good squad leader? Can a metric be determined (within the contstraints of the SWG system) and implemented that measures such things?
Message Edited by BlueGlowy on 09-07-2005 04:17 PM
Message Edited by BlueGlowy on 09-07-2005 04:21 PM