Squad Leader Archive

Hi all,

I haven't really had any ideas posted on these boards yet, but I figure I might as well start somewhere. What I'm proposing to you right now is a way for different groups that are lead by squad leaders to differentiate themselves from each other. That is the basis of a "combat stance" (working title).

Whena group of players form under a squad leader, the leader sets the kind of "theme" that thegroup as a whole is playing under. This creates a "state of mind" for other players.

Basically, when a squad leader chooses a stance, certain passive and active skills that are in the squad leader tree are open to use while the rest are either unusable or weakened. I have example stances I'd like to propose here:

Combat skills are available for use.

Increased ranged and melee attack speed.

Improved terrain negotiation and walking speed.

Fortifications available for use.

Limited mobility yet...

High ranged and melee defense.

Again, these are just examples for you guys to get into. The idea is that (especially in large scale PvP) No two SL leaded groups are the same. For example, one group is fighting under an aggressive stance, blowing away the opposition in a blitz attack to get to the base while at the same time a group under a defensive stance has set up a forward base, tending the wounded while holding back anyone trying to knock them away.

I also believe that with these stances, we can incorporate all of our ideas for squad leader without having to really sacrifice anything. And we can avoid overpowered squad leaders by having a delay:

When a group is formed they are in a neutral stance, meaning that they have some bonuses from both stances, but they aren't at their full potential. When a squad leader picks a stance, there would be a wait (maybe 5-10 mins). Should they switch from one stance to the other, they would first go back to neutral stance (as they need to get used to their sudden change of combat focus), and they would have to wait another 5-10 mins before they reach the other stance.

Going back to our base raid scenario, should the aggressive team fail to destroy the base, and suddenly they're relying on the defensive group to take down the base. Thegroup would have to change stances (because of low mobility) while at the same time trying to hold off the enemy (who are now at the counterattack) with the limited defenses of their neutral stance.

Anyway, that's what I have in mind. I hope you all like it.

Interesting Idea, and I kinda like it. What I am concerned with though is if a group is in Aggressive mode and therefore more offensively capable, would their defense suffer(even cutting into their passive defense bonuses)? And likewise shouldn't defensive stanced groups get big bonuses to counterattack?

Just wondering.

Jounville Blackferne
"No one plays SWG to be Uncle Owen" -Dallas Dickenson

I would imagine that a squad would get a slight defense bonus in the aggressive stance, not definately not as much as a group that's in a defensive stance. As for counterattacks, passive buffs, additional stances, which stance to put up the form-up command, etc... I was hoping everyone can help hammer out these details.

This thread is really more of a "hey here's a new idea, let's see what we can do with it" kind of post.

i definalty woudlnt bothere with +speed a slight bonus to damage or evne jsut accuracy woudl be of more use as a lot of combatants have speed capped as it is (any tkm/mfencer/mpistoleer is guaruanted to be speedcapped, rifles carbines swords and pikes are often speedcapped as well (relaly slow wepaons for tohs proffs might be jsut off the cpa unless the wielder has some nice tapes/fs skills)) the whoel diea of stances i like it, and i like it a lot

one modificiation id make though

thre souhld be no timer for going inot neutrla stance but neutrla souhld get the offensive bonus of defensive stance and the defensive bonsu of offensice stance ie you cna quickly swithc to neutrla but your bonuss will be minimal and you face a timer tog et out of entrual stance everytiem you enter it (ie timers leave you in your weakest stance whiel they count down and swithcing tance mid battle sohuld be an act of desperation and paid for accordingly)

as for lack of mobility in defensive stance i fele tiher souhl be exceptions, lets get some interaction with other proffs going here, and say masterranger are uneffected by the immobility and cna therefor go scouting for the defensive group, however whiel away fomr the defensive group and scouting they dont recieve full benefits (say if they go rmoe thna 100m fomr the sl they are effectivly in neutrl stance for bonus's, more thna 200m they ont get any bonus's (returning tot he gorup results in bonus's aplying agian without any timer)) after all a master rangers spend well voer half tiher points on non-combat proffs and in the gcw as things stand right now thier just cannon fodder in a lot of instances,being albe to scout ahead (and run back to the sl to regian bonus's and assistance if followed by enemies) woudl give rangers a viable role and an appropriate roll at that (scout ahead sue gorup chat to relay info bakc to squad)

Tor'Dallen the Bothan, (tk/ch/politician Chimaera)
Ikad, Naritus (former doc/cm now commando/bit of smuggler/bit of tk)
Tordallen(quad ent master), Radiant
Eressa (onetimeMaster Dancer(switching to ranger),Master Bio-engineer,farstar)
Erressa (oneitme id now, shipwright/?, Bria))
Kazzabowich(wookie sl,pike),infinity)

Yeah maybe it would work better if you get attack bonuses while in aggressive mode. I just imagined some superfast commandos, teras kasi artists, etc. charging a base under the guidance of a squad leader but if we increase damage instead we would be able to include the weaker support classes into the fight.

Also, I guess I did forget to mention this, but I wouldn't want a delay on going back to neutral mode either.

As for exemptions to the limited mobility issue, I didn't think about the ranger thing when I put up that post, that's why I hope we can get this thread going to see if we can come up with some other caveats or even some more ideas.

ive posted similar thoughts many many months ago (a year ago ) about ideas caleld Formations.

These formation ideas wer also brought up when Thulium had his "official discussion" threads for each of the branches.

Ims ure irott remembers at least the reference to them.......there were formation ideas for line formations, skirmish formations, column formations, and others. Each had a strnegth and weakness. Liek under a column formation people would move at a faster rate, but if attacked they would suffer some big penalties in combat. A double line would boost the defensive rating of the front line and the offensive rating of the rear line (in effect youd put your tankers up front and your ranged in back)

I have always liked formation oncepts, and your stances ideas seem to follow along those lines pretty closely.

Im nto sure exactl how much the devs have really looked intot hem though and im not sure if they would implement them (although we can always hope they would as it gives something unique and flexibility to group commanders).

One of the main counterpoints to these formations was that people were afraid that this would create a system of the SL "controlling" everyone elses toon. While i find that concept kinda ridiculous it is still there..and even now peopel will bring it up if enough peopel join int he debate.

Im all for puttign stuff in at novice/master and the mobility branch that has to do with stances ro formations and allows an SL to create a more cohesive group with a focused priority, with bonuses to go along with that focus.

"Honor is a virtue of the truly strong"

~~BLACKHART: FURY GM / Elite and kicka$$ Privateer Pilot. Master Shipwright.~~
******Mos Furiosis, tatooine. -323 3779*******
~~Check out Aly's Loot vendor behind my shop!~~

Hmm.. I didn't see your formations post so I'm sorry if my stances idea not a relatively novel one.I'm not sure why people would think that Formations would restrict players based on the Squad Leader's whims unless it restricts certain aspects (like it actually weakens certain aspects of their characters). The idea with stances is that no matter what stance you're in, the characters in that group would get bonuses, so there wouldn't be any reason to complain (sure, some group members would protest that the squad leader is picking a stance that they didn't want, but the squad leader has to have some power over them, and that power is not very intrusive).

I'm sure that the only thing that would weaken a character based on the stances idea is the limited mobility through the defense stance and I wouldn't see it be put to use unless you're in a situation when the whole group needs it. If a person really doesn't like the limited mobility, they could always just "break rank" and quit the group. Again, I would like to reiterate the fact that there would be little or no negative impact on the rest of the group. The only restrictions are placed upon the squad leader, as that person would have to forgo the use of part of his list of skills in order to utilize the ones that come with a chosen stance.

But now that I think about it, maybe we can bring the Formations idea into this too I believe that with enough tweaking we can make it something that everyone likes

/nod

That I do... that I do.

In fact... the link to them should be found on the first page of the "proposals we have on the table" post.

[irott and the full effect]
Master Squad Leader

---

"We're all in it together" - Archibald 'Harry' Tuttle