Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader: Revamp on Test Center
Ternque01 wrote:
KJFett3 wrote:
While I appreciate the work put into the SL adjustments, I can't help but wonder if the devs read any of the ideas we put forward on what a SL is and should be able to do.Our main focus is leadingand yet now...we don't even have to be a leader? The group can be lead by a dancer and we are still going to be shouting commands and they are supposed to listen to us?Innate abilitiesWe as leaders should instill certain "motivation" in a group that just comes naturally, and requires no extra effort on our part as the group works to do their best to acheive above the means of a single person. It is a reflection of how a group always works harder to do what is needed than when they are alone.Multiple SLs in the group.Too many cooks in the kitchen comes to mind. There should be a negative effect the more SLs there are, not a benefit. SLs should be encouraged to form up groups and lead groups, not encouraged to group up with other SLs to form some uber buff group.The many commandsI thyink it would be better to move the use of commands back to one SL in the group how is leader, and give them the ability to aply more than 1 of the buffs...perhaps the ability to apply 2 or 3...no more than that though. I could agree with a 2nd command spot possibly..where the number 8 spot of a group..if filled by a MSL could be an "Aid" to the leader and do single player buffs (not group). Where as teh leader motivates the group and can motivate individuals, the 2nd in command could motivate individuals. This 2nd in command could also assume leader of the group should the leader be slain, then being able to do all that a SL leader is able to do...the slain SL would then fall into the 8 spot.just some thoguhts....I am sure to have more after I get on TC and get it ago...maybe some opinions will change...so Ill leave this as an open post to edit as needed.
Being the leader of a group DOES NOT EQUAL being the Group leader. Forcing a Squad Leader to be a Group leader of a group is a limitation, not a perk, bro/sis.In combat, the most important jobs include calling targets, which no one can do better unless you have a voicechat program, and coordinating your positions/movements/resources to be most effective in combat, which a SL has consummate abilities to enhance these decisions, i.e. movement increases, defensive/offensive buffs, damage multipliers, etc.Again, FORCING a SL to be the Group leader is a pain-in-the-ass limitation, NOT something appropriate.Message Edited by Ternque01 on 09-03-2005 10:01 AM
That is what we do though. Lead. That is the current concept of SL. It isn't a limitation. KJFett, myself, Scout, Sylow would probably all agree with me. Leading is our Job..else we would be called Squad Groupies not Squad Leader. And besides, jsut be cause we're the leader doesn't mean that we actually have to lead the people playing the characters.
Message Edited by AlienEntity on 09-03-2005 07:31 PM
That is what we do though. Lead. That is the current concept of SL. It isn't a limitation. KJFett, myself, Scout, Sylow would probably all agree with me. Leading is our Job..else we would be called Squad Groupies not Squad Leader. And besides, jsut be cause we're the leader doesn't mean that we actually have to lead the people playing the characters.
I personally would say, i don't lead, i coordinate. *grin*
Anyways, i fully agree, when being involved in a successful basebust, there must be ONE leader and in case of bigger operations, one or two persons to take over for details while the leader focuses on the most central part. These roles must be determined beforehand and have to be clear and constant during the whole operation. (Among experienced people, they can replace one leaving by another one, but the new one quite likely have a problem as people on the channel won't immediately accept him as replacement leader.)
While this has little to do with game mechanics, i think that there should not be plenty of squad leaders in a group. In terms or responsibility, one leader for 8 men is more than enough, ioften saw leaders coordinate bigger "teams". In terms of game mechanics, one team and one leader makes sense, except being frustrating for SLs being in team and not being able to use their abilities. I had this situation very rarely up to now, but with SLs hopefully becomming more frequent, i am well aware of the problem. That's why i personally think that it should be possible for second SLs to give weaker versions of the buffs to the team.
They indeed should not be able to use the /sys command, this one should be reserved to the group leader. Additionally i would allow only the leader to assing the individual buffs. (If everybody can do that, then you'll have a person with 3 times increase agro and 5 times decrease agro put upon him or something like that... they are directly contradicting each other, so it doesn't make sense that several can be issued at the same time.) Of the abilities, i would restrict the system message, called shot, rally point and paint target to the group leader (they are commands of coordination and if used by several people will create more confusion than good) but allow everybody in group to use last chance when need arises.
So, like the other veterans here, i follow the idea that there is _one_ leader, which is the group leader. He is responsible for organisation and coordination of the team, assigns targets, roles and objectives. If several people do that, the operation is doomed as confusion arrises and efficiency is lost.
For playability of the class, i support that the group buffs can be supplied by anybody in group, but for balance reason i suggest that buffs from non-leaders should be noticeably weaker than from groupleaders but still be strong enough to be worth using.
Edit: And for the love of the profession and further greatness, allow us to keep group terrain negotiation. This modifier, though not recognized by many people, has proven to be the most valuable of all passive modifiers we ever had. Do not remove what has proven to be this useful, please.
Message Edited by Sylow on 09-04-2005 03:33 AM
"Additionally i would allow only the leader to "assing" the individual buffs."
So do we have to be in the buff to apply our assing buffs? rofl
Message Edited by AlienEntity on 09-03-2005 08:42 PM
Make "assign" out of it, oki... and now, 20 for the homeland so you learn, go ahead!
"Additionally i would allow only the leader to "assing" the individual buffs."
/salute Sylow
Message Edited by AlienEntity on 09-04-2005 03:05 AM
As a former SL and a regular player, I'll throw in my opinion..
1) Having a single SL in the group is best.
- Only one person needs to paint a target or decide what abilities to enhance
- If you do not have the ability to remove people from your group, you are not an effective SL
- Multiple SL's using various buffs can/will confuse people and reduce the effectiveness of the group
- Multiple SL's spamming system messages with only confuse the group
2) Secondary Squad Leaders are not ineffective. If you have 8 people and two of them are squad leaders, form two groups of four. Problem fixed. It's worked this way for a long time and it works fine.
3) If the 10min/30min timers listed previously are correct, they need to be seriously reduced. Any high end buff should last maybe60 seconds, lower end ones should not exceed 5 mins. Otherwise you are a buff bot. Even the dev's obviously agree with this since they reduced the average doctor buffs from 3 1/2 hours to what, 40 minutes and only 15 for the speed buff since it is so vital.
4) I can only speak for myself, but if these changes went live today I would disband from any group that had multiple SL's or even a single SL that did not know how to use their abilities well. A single bad SL can get an entire group killed, adding multiples will only make that worse.
AlienEntity wrote:
Change it back to SL's MUST be the group leader and I think this revamp will be just about perfect. They need to add GTN back though.
Agreed on both counts.
KJFett3 wrote:
Kindarin wrote:
I guess my rant is there is strength in numbers for leaders, and there is great leadership in working with others rather than issuing orders because you're the designated "Leader." I like to play my Squad Leader profession in the game as I ran my Platoon, and Squad before that, in real life. Works for me.
yeah, I am sooo sure every private in your squad was a leader that was able to give the group buffs in the same way you as the squad/platoon leader was able to. Heck! I bet the Army needs to make sure a platoon has 8 Sgts. to insure the 4 privates do their job right. Every squad in history has had ONE leader. Period, no ifs ands or buts. That's the way it is. When you get too many "leaders" in one place, command turns into chaos as the few followers left don't know who to follow or who is leading.This doesnt mean that we want to nerf SL. This doesn't mean we want to weaken the buff abilities. This means they need to go back to SL being the GL and place everythign back in with that in mind. Give us back our leadership role as a Squad Leader.
Drevin...are you familiar with how rank works? The difference between Marine Corps and Army?
You are correct that every UNIT has had one leader, yes. The leader of the United States' military is the Commander-in-Chief, aka the President of the USA. Do you really think he issues all the orders? No, he relies on the heads of each individual military body...Admiral of the Navy, Commandant of the Marine Corps, etc. Then, in case of the Marines, the Commandant passes his wishes and/or orders to the Divisions/Fleets, which goes to Regimental Commanders, to Battallion Commanders, to Company Commanders, to Platoon Commanders, to the Platoon Sergeants, to the Squad Leaders. The beauty of the system is the delegation of authority to those who are capable of deciding the most effective way of carrying out those orders.
You do need your Privates, yes. And when a Private (E-1) becomes a Private First Class (E-2), they receive new responsibilities. Next they get Lance Corporal (E-3), and they get new responsibilities. Upon getting Corporal (E-4), they become a NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer), and suddenly they are responsible for the E-1's through E-3's and report to their Sergeant (E-5). Sergeant report to Staff Sergeants (E-6) and Gunnery Sergeants (E-7), and so on.
For SWG's Squad Leader, I for one look forward to having a second SL. Can't wait! That way I can devote my time to making sure everyone is shooting the right target and staying together, for example, while the second SL is issuing warnings for the healers as to who may be dropping out, or setting a new rally point for us to fall back to/push through to. The possibilities are truly limitless for how awesome a group could be with this.
I do agree it's possible to have too many Leaders, though. Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians as we always said in the Corps. I'm really hoping that the Devs see the gateway to creating SWG's version of "raid groups" is through the Squad Leader profession, which would help with that issue. Perhaps chaining groups together through SLs, but those SLs can only buff/affect the 7 other players in their group. I would think the key to that would be creating a "Platoon Commander" position, having one of the SL's acting as the Platoon Sergeant, and that would be the foundation to creating a raid group.
Can you imagine running through the DWB this way?
Message Edited by Kindarin on 09-03-2005 02:17 PM
First off, I think everyone's reaction was one of "happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy!" LOL The buff system could be an intresting alternative to what's in game now. As an example, my guild was allgung-ho for a guild grinding session followed by kimo/kraytm hunting. As soon as I logged in I was bombarded in guildchat saying, "Come on, hurry up!!!" without acutally getting a straight answer over what exactly was going on. lol We took our missions, and headed out. Then they decided to make it a spin group.
I just sat it out. lol I already have my xp banked for FS and I wasn't gonna waste time and commands that were useless in that situation. With this proposed system, applying group buffs and such could work well and not be a waste of my time. And having another SL in group COULD be helpful for supplementing that process.
However, there are some potential problems I see, most of them pointed out already. It could easily turn into a complete mess if you get 2 SL's who don't communicate with each other about the best possible tactics and what buffs to call when. But beyond that, one of my concerns is that there's a lot of potential for spiteful/immature players to take up the skills for no other reason than to grief the group. On occasion, I'll admit to throwing an odd/weird comment up with sys just to see if folks are awake. lol But that on a regular basis from someone who thinks they're being funny will get very old very quick, never mind if it's from most of the group. Plus if used wrong, some of the individual buffs could be abused as griefing tools. Bad potential all around.
The best possible situation I can see is if they do keep in being able to use SL abilities without having to be group leader, some commands/buffs may have to be limited to an SL who is group leader. Allow the group buffs to be used by non-group leader SL's but perhaps limit the individual buffs and some of the abilities to group leader SL. Of course, there are some serious potential problems with THAT as well, I know, but atm that's the best possible compromise I can think of.
Oh, and big thanks to ALL the professions who have visited to say congrats to us for this, it's nice to see, gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. Thanks again to you all.
You both are argueing about two different things.
As I stated before the difference between the RL and SWG is the rank of real world officers as well as the military organication. The chain of command comes naturally, this is something that is missing within SWG.
In cross guild PvP in SWG different ppl have different plans and tactics which will clash. We have a shared Ventrilo server for Ahazi and ppl with different plans keep arguing along with each other.
This will happen with two or three squad leaders within a group too, hence the strong stance of ONE squad leader per group from some of the squad leaders around here.
I love it to have a second/sub leader in my group but so far it never needed to be another squad leader profession player, I have usually a doc anyway taking care of health as well as a pointman for the target that everybody assist so my group usually already acts pretty good so i can focus on leading the other groupps and coordinate with them better.
Thats where i see need for imporvement of SL abilites, CROSS GROUP COMMUNICATIONS.
The thing now is that it also is encouraged to have multiple and in the end too many squad leader in one group when ppl start to gain advantage of all buffs at once, this is totally against the original concept of a squad leader enhancing it group. This encouraged that squadleader only gorup with squad leader to gain uber buff groups, what is not enhancing the group, though just rather themself, what is not the way large majority of the squad leader sees the squad leader.
To gain access to multipl buffs it would be good to limit it to two squad leaders per group with MSL and giving the MSL the ability to hold maybe two active buffs and with a subleader giving another buff to a total of three for the whole group.
Anyway the haveing multiple squad leaders (and the emphasis is of more than two squad leaders who do not have a chain of command since they just meet for the first time) in a single group is totally against the concept of squad leaders in a group.
Fordep wrote:
I think it's easier to control a non-leader SL who's abusing power than one who is the group leader.
If I have a guy in my group tossing up lame SL messages and using the wrong specials he'll get one... maybe two warnings then he's out of the group.
Just boot em when they're not acting properly.
If a SL is abusing his powers, why would people group with him anyway?