Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Squad Leader: Revamp on Test Center
Hey Guys...
Don't forget that a lot of our commands aka /sysgroup, /volleyfire, /retreat... didn't work unless we were group leader anyway. I think from whatI have seen so far (and no I havent been able to test yet on TC) is that those types of commands will work only for the SL that is group leader and the new "buffs" will be able to be applyed by any SL's in the group.
Now that is just my two cents but I think that would be a logical way to work the new skills.
On a different note everyone has made valid points concerning the new ablilities. Having mulitple SL's in a group could be good and yes I am sure we will have lots of dabblers, but once the newness wears off and people realize how much these commands drain us the numbers will decrease again. Also for those who PVP a lot, we will once again be the #1 target of the other side (so much for my PVP rating /sigh). Esp since many of these commands will weaken us, we will be fodder for the enemy.And as for the jedi/BH subgame ... our commands/buffs didn't apply before.. so unless they change that piece of codeI seriously doubt it will be an issue.
Anyway... I know I am really looking forward to being able to play with all these new ablilies. I have been a SL since before the CU and I love this profession enough that I was willing to wait for a publish like this. I hope that when this goes live we will become an effective support postion once again and hopefully not the FOTM.
Erinne Fel --- L A W ---
Master Squad Leader - Master Carbineer
_scout_ wrote:
Now in case your not the squad leader but one of the two squad leaders in the group but both are not groupleader, how woudl you kick that player who is abuseing this SL commands with not-funny but lame and distracting /sys msg out of your group when the groupleader is to busy with fighting necrosis/PvP/krayt/..?
In my humble opinion squad leader should be one per group and should be limited to be group leader.
Easy answer 
.
I would quit the group and find one more agreeable to my playstyle. And i think you would know what the group was like BEFORE you hit necrosis/PvP/krayt/..? if you were paying attention to the dynamics of the group
Not to bruise any egos (well, maybe a little:smileytongue but too many here confuse Leader with Dictator. Leadership comes from abilty. Not by having the wordLeader in a title. Seems many have a control issue and that's ok. But you can't be an effective leader by just wearing a title. Ya gotta go out and earn it.
When you're group leader...Squad Leader as a profession aside...you have certain options you can set for the group. Basically loot options, inviting new players and kicking existing, and you're able to disband the group as a whole or transfer the lead to another player.
Why not create a side-set of options that become enable when a Squad Leader takes the Group Leader billet? They can fine-tune what the group can do, for example I would like to see:
-Allow multiple Squad Leaders (on/off) - This would basically toggle between current system (must be Group Leader) and new system (multiple SLs in a group). If this option is disabled, then no need to further tweak options.
-Allow group member system messages (on/off) - Turned on, other SLs in group can send system messages. Turned off, other SLs in your group are unable to send system messages to the group.
-Allow set rally point (on/off) - Can disable or allow other SLs in group to set rally points.
-Allow group buffs (on/off) - Obvious.
-Require confirmation (on/off) - If you want to micro-manage as some Leaders prefer, anytime they try to do something as a SL you have to allow it.
The only other couple of options would be to disable or enable SL abilities, and individual buffs. I, personally, don't think those should be able to be turned on/off. If the first option is disabled, then they're off, period. If it is on, then even if you restrict everything else they can at least give/renew individual buffs and help some.
Since many seem to agree one of the SLs needs to be in the Group Leader spot, how about the only way to allow more than one SL in a gorup is tied to one of them being in the Group Leader spot? If you're an SL, join a group, and you are not Group Leader then you're the only SL that will have working abilities in the group by default. If you're buddy comes along and you think the two of ya would make the group tha tmuch better, you get the GL spot and invite him, setup what you'll allow him to do and there ya go!
As far as the possible exploit of BHs and Jedi using this to their advantage, simple fix...tie in code to disable any SL enhancements with the BH vs Jedi TEF.
OTHER options I would like to see the Group Leader be allowed...
-Invite Group - Allows the option to invite another group, daisy-chaining two groups together. I'd like the ability to have three groups total chained together, which would be ESPECIALLY useful for assaults on the DWB or Avatar Station.
-Assign Platoon Commander/Make Platoon Commander - An optional billet in the two or three group setup, as long as there are enough SLs for each group (i.e., three groups and three SLs), then a fourth SL can be put into the Platoon Commander position and have an effect on ALL the groups under his/her command. The individual Squad Leaders would then have "fine-tuning" control over the seven players they're responsible for. Platoon Commander would have access to the Group Leader options mentioned above, excluding the ability to limit SLs.
I think THIS would put in a huge level of strategy for Squad Leaders, having to setup different options, coordinate efforts, and in the case where you assemble three full groups with four Squad Leaders....ooo boy, DWB best watch out.
Whatcha think?
-Allow multiple Squad Leaders (on/off) - This would basically toggle between current system (must be Group Leader) and new system (multiple SLs in a group). If this option is disabled, then no need to further tweak options.
Welcome to the "worst of all worlds". Disguising the problem by locking SLs when a real SL leads, giving full power to the 8-man-SL-dabbler team on the other side. Won't earn us half a second against the nerfbat which will come when the powerdabbling starts.
-Allow group member system messages (on/off) - Turned on, other SLs in group can send system messages. Turned off, other SLs in your group are unable to send system messages to the group. -Allow set rally point (on/off) - Can disable or allow other SLs in group to set rally points.
No need to choose, they must be off. Sorry, i've seen several people deciding at the same time what the team should do at the same time. Chaos on the battlefield, rebels laughing and picking us apart. Never worked, never will work. A wrong decission is better than several decissions (among which are several wrong decissions...) and at least with one coordinated movement, at least you won't end up with teams broken and spitted over half a planet...
-Allow group buffs (on/off) - Obvious.
Worst of all worlds again.
-Require confirmation (on/off) - If you want to micro-manage as some Leaders prefer, anytime they try to do something as a SL you have to allow it.
This one i don't get what you want to switch with it... but, alas, i dislike all of the above already, i am sorry. The whole concept would just be an attempt to rub sand in the old SLs eyes, presenting them an option to configure the system to a logical way which could be abuse-free... but every team has the "setabuse on" button directly implemented, so it's really no more than a smokescreen and of no actual help.
... but, alas, i dislike all of the above already, i am sorry. The whole concept would just be an attempt to rub sand in the old SLs eyes, presenting them an option to configure the system to a logical way which could be abuse-free... but every team has the "set abuse on" button directly implemented, so it's really no more than a smokescreen and of no actual help.
This is one heck of a pessimistic view though...the options are for compromise, so that those who prefer total control over things have their way, and those who like the idea of teamwork can have theirs.
I have a hard time understanding those who seem, to me, to be control freaks. Squad Leader was the first elite profession I mastered, back before they even gave a badge for it, so I would be one of the "Old SLs" you mention and I for one can't wait for the changes to come. If anything, it'll let natural leaders shine over those that need that feeling of control.
BUT...I know everyone has their own playstyles, and everyone gets enjoyment out of being able to do things their way. So I suggested compromise over a "my way or the highway" attitude. I'd think myself ignorant trying to say my way is the only way.
Kindarin wrote:
... but, alas, i dislike all of the above already, i am sorry. The whole concept would just be an attempt to rub sand in the old SLs eyes, presenting them an option to configure the system to a logical way which could be abuse-free... but every team has the "set abuse on" button directly implemented, so it's really no more than a smokescreen and of no actual help.
This is one heck of a pessimistic view though...the options are for compromise, so that those who prefer total control over things have their way, and those who like the idea of teamwork can have theirs.
I have a hard time understanding those who seem, to me, to be control freaks. Squad Leader was the first elite profession I mastered, back before they even gave a badge for it, so I would be one of the "Old SLs" you mention and I for one can't wait for the changes to come. If anything, it'll let natural leaders shine over those that need that feeling of control.
BUT...I know everyone has their own playstyles, and everyone gets enjoyment out of being able to do things their way. So I suggested compromise over a "my way or the highway" attitude. I'd think myself ignorant trying to say my way is the only way.
yet again with out a single consolidated leader (with the ability to remove those who don't follow commands) you have a mess that can be made worse with the massive ability to grief inherent in the new commands.
- adding aggro to players
- removing all their action and mind pool
- lowering their defence while increasing offensive power and vice versa
all of which can and will lead to death on the battle field if there is no undisputed chain of command and the hammer that goes with that chain has to be the ability to remove players who do not follow direction. If you are a bad SL sure it sucks and you will never play your character but in that case you probably should not have picked sl in the first place - you are not a natural leader and people would not follow you. Most SLs picked the profession because they are leaders and want to make a difference not because they want to be a buff bot in the corner of a cantina.
Kindarin wrote:
This is one heck of a pessimistic view though... (a)
the options are for compromise, (b)
I'd think myself ignorant trying to say my way is the only way. (c)
(a) This is just realistic if you remember we are here at SOE SWG where each publish needs two immediatly follow up hotfixes so the game is playable again, where the smugglers get shafted time and time again, and where all profession that might endanger the alpha class gets nerfed.
(b) There is no compromise in leadership, either you lead or you dont.
Your on/off toggles will just make everything more and more unplayable. Some of the old school forum Squad leader are not dictators but we ll aware the fact that ppl will abuse and xploit the mutlileader ship in a group, hence our strong stance on keeping it at one squad leader per group who needs to be groupleader, or a limit two.
(c) you are very welcome here, since you still bring in new arguments, for your opinion and keep discussing it, hard work for you, i guess with the majority of old time forum squad leaders having a different opinion but still welcome, though some other ppl/one other person on the other hand just troll/spam/flame their idea around while not even being a squad leader what makes some of us squad leaders rather ... lets say getting into a sylow-friday-mood ....
We dont want to be elitist or sound rather harsh, but we like opinion backed up arguments, reasons, numbers, statictics and the ability of the reader to see both sides but not having ppl around who just post and post and post the same thing over and over again .... (heck read what you post before you post so you dont have to have three posts in a row just because you couldnt think about your arguments and reasons for you opinion before you write, think first, post later)
I have seen sever times where people try to bring RL into this game, each time it has always caused the argument "This is a game it needs to balance".
It was used alot in the Riflemen forum, with the speed issue, the fights with that were quit irritating. Im not sure how the whole 2 SL thing would work, most time in PvP we always have a doc who stays back and does nothing but rez, so your out of the fight no more then 30 seconds. Also bein a riflemen with SL I am able to hang back and picture the whole situation for my group, and get a good picture about what needs to be done. Having someone else there throwing in their skills and what they think shold happen would just get them on my bad side. (Ya I have had people in my group that think we should do something totally different but If IM not sure on the whole thing I will ask the group).
Also, limited the "NCOs" skills just seems odd, I mastered out the Profession, I shold be able to use it to the full potention but I cant do that unless I have my own group?
One SL per group is more then enough, in the Pre-CU days I was able to have a group of 20 and be able to control (though noting that in those cases none of them were azzholes). If people want multiple options with 2 SLs, why not just allow one to put up two skills at once?
Ackehece wrote:
Kindarin wrote:
... but, alas, i dislike all of the above already, i am sorry. The whole concept would just be an attempt to rub sand in the old SLs eyes, presenting them an option to configure the system to a logical way which could be abuse-free... but every team has the "set abuse on" button directly implemented, so it's really no more than a smokescreen and of no actual help.
This is one heck of a pessimistic view though...the options are for compromise, so that those who prefer total control over things have their way, and those who like the idea of teamwork can have theirs.
I have a hard time understanding those who seem, to me, to be control freaks. Squad Leader was the first elite profession I mastered, back before they even gave a badge for it, so I would be one of the "Old SLs" you mention and I for one can't wait for the changes to come. If anything, it'll let natural leaders shine over those that need that feeling of control.
BUT...I know everyone has their own playstyles, and everyone gets enjoyment out of being able to do things their way. So I suggested compromise over a "my way or the highway" attitude. I'd think myself ignorant trying to say my way is the only way.
yet again with out a single consolidated leader (with the ability to remove those who don't follow commands) you have a mess that can be made worse with the massive ability to grief inherent in the new commands.- adding aggro to players
- removing all their action and mind pool
- lowering their defence while increasing offensive power and vice versa
all of which can and will lead to death on the battle field if there is no undisputed chain of command and the hammer that goes with that chain has to be the ability to remove players who do not follow direction. If you are a bad SL sure it sucks and you will never play your character but in that case you probably should not have picked sl in the first place - you are not a natural leader and people would not follow you. Most SLs picked the profession because they are leaders and want to make a difference not because they want to be a buff bot in the corner of a cantina.
LOL That's why I'm saying there should be control! Look...it seems like some of you are misreading me here, so let me make it plain what my point of view is:
1. There needs to be abilities granted to a Squad Leader when they are in the Group Leader position to allow control over other SLs in the group.
2. If a SL isn't in the GL position, the first SL to join the group should be the only one allowed to use their skillset.
3. SLs in the GL position need to be able to add/recruit other groups that are led by a SL.
That's all there is to my argument. My opinion that multiple SLs is a "good" thing is only my opinion, just as my preference for Livewire vs. Mountain Dew for a beverage. I do think some of you will see how awesome you can make your group with the help of a SL buddy, and I do think you'll see the results of this on the PvP battlefield and in Dungeons.
Will there be terd-newbie-ignorant Squad Leaders screwing things up for their group, fumbling over each other trying to throw out tons of system messages because it looks cool to them? Heck yeah! I see those same morons all over the place; trying to kill Jedi and getting smacked down, begging me for money everytime I'm stupid enough to try getting an Inspiration buff in the Mose Eisley cantina, trying to tank as a Rifleman or fighting instead of healing as a Doctor.
We're gonna have to accept Squad Leader's going be more attractive of a profession now! There isn't a thing any of us can do about it, not only because SL is more apparently useful than before (because us old-timers actually READ and TESTED what the hell our abilities did in a group), but because it's new! I bet if they add the Juggling ability tomorrow people will flock to it for the sole reason that it's new.
Bounty Hunters had to deal with the same thing on a scale way beyond anything we'll see, and I wasn't happy about that having been a Bounty Hunter that had to go through the damn Investigation tree when you still waited 10 minutes for a stupid shuttle to arrive. They got it easy, they came along for the new stuff after I waited forever. But it didn't impact my gameplay, if anything I got a few laughs out of it.
Kindarin wrote:
(B) (regarding in leader ship there is no compromise) I'm gonna have to disagree with ya on this one..... There we plenty of times I've had to deal with a Sergeant from another unit or one in my Platoon where compromise was essential. The catch is there will always be different types of leadership, and within those types is the Totalitarian ruler...they insist on everything being their way alone, and that works for them. While I don't agree with that type of leadership myself, I respect it for those who do use it.
(C) I think there should be some kind of restraint, and I think that I always hunt with my guild and -very- rarely within unknown people has a huge impact on my opinion. I'm not worried about working with random SLs, I look forward to working with those within my guild where we can setup a plan. Decide beforehand what happens.
I like opinion-backed up arguments as well, which is why I'm trying to share with you all my experiences doing in real-life what most haven't had the opportunity to do. I realize this is a game, and when I do play games I try to bring real-life lessons into it as best I can. If I'm playing a FPS like Rainbow Six or Halo, I use what I learned from Urban Warfare training to move through levels instead of running all over the place and it works otu great. Maybe I off a bit to look at the SL profession in SWG that way, I dunno. Guess I'll see when Publish 24 hits and I take a group out for the first time.
(B) Yes im the totalitarian type of ruler
in a certain way. The thing is, what when two strongheads both good leaders clash on each other and none of them backs off ? In your RL example you two found a compromise but one had to make the call, with all those immature players around especially floating to the surface in PvP who is going to make the call if two ppl start arguing per sys which direction they should take.Im am the totalitarin leader in my group, but that doesnt mean I dont listen to my group. When we raid/DWB/base bust Im one among my group, I give them a plan, listen to alternatives or different plans but IN THE END I make the decision, since Im the squad leader and I carry the responsibility.
You mentioned it somehwere you play with your guildies a lot so thats a pretty close envireoment. On ahazi there is a galaxy wide rebel alliance, where a lot of rebel guilds share one ventrilo server. Often I see ppl joining the PvP channel during mass PvP and four - five ppl start coming up with different strategies and ideas all shouting/argumenting at each other but no one is able to make a decision, while they forget the ppl who are NOT on vent and leaving them totally without any direction, there is no leader in there, and among the natural leaders there is no chain of command.
In those case I bann all my guild out of the PvP channel and get them back in the REB channel, i drop my second ventrillo account into the PvP channel and listen while I am at the same time in the REB channel where i tell them whats the next thing to do. No need to bring them all into the PvP channel having each their own idea of tactica adding even more to the argument while the imperials start attacking those who are not on venttrilo and wonder why all the leaders are standing around doing nothing.
where we come to
(C) we need some restrains and in your follow up post you made pretty good suggestions who to handle multipls squad leaders in one group, but your contradiction yourself a little bit
...
Kindarin wrote:
1. There needs to be abilities granted to a Squad Leader when they are in the Group Leader position to allow control over other SLs in the group.
2. If a SL isn't in the GL position, the first SL to join the group should be the only one allowed to use their skillset. ---------- WHY not make him group leader, why to invent a new command for this ? -----------
3. SLs in the GL position need to be able to add/recruit other groups that are led by a SL.---------- Again why not make him group leader, why to invent a new command for this ?
Thats why we want a squad leaders to be groupleaders, thats why we want the number of squad leaders limited if not limited to one at all.
You said it yourself
We need restrictions on the squadleaders and as sylow pointed out, what happens if one SL unexprienced as he is sees the heatlh going down on his fellow mates and hits retreat so nobody can use any action while at the same time the CM just wanted to throw an area heal to heal them, poof group dead.
LOL That's why I'm saying there should be control! Look...it seems like some of you are misreading me here, so let me make it plain what my point of view is:
1. There needs to be abilities granted to a Squad Leader when they are in the Group Leader position to allow control over other SLs in the group.
2. If a SL isn't in the GL position, the first SL to join the group should be the only one allowed to use their skillset.
3. SLs in the GL position need to be able to add/recruit other groups that are led by a SL.
Oki, now i'm getting your point and concept. The advantages in your concept are, in my eyes:
- You give me another reason to use these bullets to count them up. (I love doing that...
) - You actually control the SL abilities.
- The first SL can reduce the stress on himself by handing out part of the job to be done by other SLs. If i get that right, it's that EITHER the first SL can apply the corresponding set of buffs, OR the one he delegated the part to is able to do that? (Thus you could have one SL caring for group buffs, one caring for individual buffs and one using the abilities.)
- More than one SL is actually able to use at least part of his abilities in a group.
Unfortunately i also see the disadvantages:
- You have to see even more of me counting up things like this.
- You have a massive increase in coordination requirement as the 3 SLs have to use the 3 different branches accordingly. The "normal" soldier only reacts on commands which the SL gives him, and the whole action of the team will be after the SL gives the command. This concept adds some overhead before the command, reducing overal reaction speed.
- Reducing the things to group-leader only is some mechanics which already are implemented and available. The new mechanics have to still be implemented brand-new. Of course, the coders are just on the matter, so if it's to be implemented then it is right now, but i wonder if we're not better of with bugfixes and finetuning on the all-newsysteminstead of this feature added to it still.
So, the disadvantages of this concept actually have some weight, but if Devs are ready to throw in the ressources, i guess we as players are also ready to do so.
It's a more complex approach to gain control than the group leader only concept, but it's still a good way to regulate the buffs and abilities and worth to be considered.
Message Edited by Sylow on 09-05-2005 03:46 AM
At least we know the Dev team thought about that one, lol.