Jump to content
40mmrain

On: The future Commander feature and how it can be properly implemented

Recommended Posts

I organized an event for Commander role specifically:

 

 

Would be nice to see how this event contributes to the discussion.

Edited by Wicca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wicca said:

I organized an event for Commander role specifically:

 

 

Would be nice to see how this event contributes to the discussion.

Is this sanctioned by Offworld and will a staff member be present like the other commander matches where people were in cameraman mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Is this sanctioned by Offworld and will a staff member be present like the other commander matches where people were in cameraman mode?


? ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So within the context of my adventures this weekend playing nothing but Militia on Mestia in the squadops server by default I kind of took on this intelligence gathering and advisory role that allowed the rest of the squad to quickly react and often times win the game.

 

It's not really like I even had intentions of doing this but because of the massive elevation changes combined with line of sight I was able to occupy elevated positions with the scout car and keep overwatch on my kid while he laid down mines.

 

That said, it got me thinking last night. So most random people are resistant to even listening to a squad leader unless it's within an organized setting like say for example those level matches I played in. Logically then on public servers 9 times out of 10 you've got squads members not listening to their squad leaders and then squad leaders bickering & arguing with each other and playing the blame game.

 

Now factor in the implementation of the "Commander" role. Unless used in a clan match I can't possibly see how a bunch of egotistical randoms are going to listen to some other random commander. Again what few brain cells I have left fired.

 

Realistically speaking, based on my experiences over the weekend I had kind of a light bulb pop over my head (might be the perscription cough syrup as well) that you simply rename the role as "Intelligence" or "Intel" or something along those lines. Now the inherent pressure is off for everyone to listen to your orders simply because you're the "Commander". So this MOS 35 would get some kind of special abilities and perks that others don't have but in a way that would only motivate interested people to play the role. Maybe also nerfed abilities like a pistol only to further discourage random unqualified people from picking the role. Any thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Realistically speaking, based on my experiences over the weekend I had kind of a light bulb pop over my head (might be the perscription cough syrup as well) that you simply rename the role as "Intelligence" or "Intel" or something along those lines. Now the inherent pressure is off for everyone to listen to your orders simply because you're the "Commander". So this MOS 35 would get some kind of special abilities and perks that others don't have but in a way that would only motivate interested people to play the role. Maybe also nerfed abilities like a pistol only to further discourage random unqualified people from picking the role. Any thoughts?

 

I agree 100% with the initial problem. That it's hard enough to get Squad Members to listen as well as disagreements on comms between Squad Leaders. Adding a commander role into the mix is honestly in my opinion not going to yield the expected results. I'm already seeing this role as being completely ignored by SL's. On public matches of course. 

 

Intelligence however sounds like an interesting idea. I suppose that role will gain access to surveillance gadgets and resources to be used for gathering intel on enemy movement and relay back to the SL's. Decreasing the intel role arsenal in favor of surveillance resources and whatever else sounds like a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, suds said:

omg ! @Zylfrax791 http://forums.joinsquad.com/search/?&q=intel&author=suds

 

lol ive been bashing on about that for many months

 

commander orders - never

intel provided - THANKS!

Sorry. I didn't mean to steal your thunder. I was just dazed out from the medicine and Patron so I managed to rub a couple of synapses together in my ambush spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you coming up with the same idea is fine by me. Commander will never work, it should never be spoken of again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that no one ever reads what I write? 

 

The entire point of my entire essay was that people do not actually listen to the order of their superiors in this game - and that's okay because the game is designed to work regardless of this by these superiors controlling the spawn points. All I suggest is that this paradigm be expanded into 1 more higher level of authority that can indirectly push squad leaders to the right direction. 

 

Everything you people bring up as counterpoints to the idea of a commander already has a solution built into the original proposal. 

 

Let me ask again - Why is it okay for the game to be structured such that a superior officer dictates the spawn points to subordinates in the squad leader-squad member relationship, but it is not okay that exists one more relationship of commander-squad leader that is very similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with many of comments on the breakdown of following "orders" in Squad, I often also see people following good SL's orders to a T and enjoying it. So, while I think it's a bit much to think a "commander" would always be leading, I think they could and very effectively in the right hands. Essentially, you've described the role, they get access to intel and using that would be able to provide a better meta strategy. If the Intel officer was just offing up info, while sitting back and drinking a beer and hoping the SL's would act on it, you're really expecting one of them to step up and lead the others anyway. Someone has to make decisions and the others will decide if they'll follow it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 40mmrain said:

Let me ask again - Why is it okay for the game to be structured such that a superior officer dictates the spawn points to subordinates in the squad leader-squad member relationship, but it is not okay that exists one more relationship of commander-squad leader that is very similar?

I personally believe that it stems from people who squad lead (regularly) having a slight egotistical aspect to their personality (myself included). There are of course people who squad lead only when someone else hasn't stepped up, and this doesn't apply as much to them... but those who like to be in a leadership position (SL) do so because they like to be the ones giving orders, not taking them... or they feel like they do a better job than other people who are leaders in the game and so "they" should be in charge. 

 

What you propose with a commander role (another level in the hierarchy) takes away from the subconscious "top of the foodchain" mentality that the SLs enjoy, and thus they're naturally going to be compelled to protect the status quo in which they are the top dogs. 

 

Having played over 10 years of PR and squad now, with 9 of that being a regular SL, and a lot of the commander role in 2010-2012, I agree with your sentiments 40mm, but to me at least (whether my theory is right or not, I don't know) it is easy to see the natural human desire for preservation of power creeping into the counter arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ very well said.

 

 

3 hours ago, Psyrus said:

[...] it is easy to see the natural human desire for preservation of power [...]

This is so true. Open your eyes and you will see it everywhere in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Psyrus said:

I personally believe that it stems from people who squad lead (regularly) having a slight egotistical aspect to their personality (myself included). There are of course people who squad lead only when someone else hasn't stepped up, and this doesn't apply as much to them... but those who like to be in a leadership position (SL) do so because they like to be the ones giving orders, not taking them... or they feel like they do a better job than other people who are leaders in the game and so "they" should be in charge. 

 

What you propose with a commander role (another level in the hierarchy) takes away from the subconscious "top of the foodchain" mentality that the SLs enjoy, and thus they're naturally going to be compelled to protect the status quo in which they are the top dogs. 

 

Having played over 10 years of PR and squad now, with 9 of that being a regular SL, and a lot of the commander role in 2010-2012, I agree with your sentiments 40mm, but to me at least (whether my theory is right or not, I don't know) it is easy to see the natural human desire for preservation of power creeping into the counter arguments. 

Wouldn't you agree though that there is no "preservation of power" in Squad because the devs specifically programmed it out on purpose? There are no stats, ranks, ladders or golden stars to differentiate one player from another other than looking at a players Steam profile for hours in game. Bottom line, in a random game situation people barely listen to squad leaders because there is no compulsion to do so. An additional layer of management will also be met with resistance and further non compliance.

 

On the other hand, in an organized situation like clan matches there is complete compliance soley by fear of exclusion from the particular online herd you've chosen to be a part of. Only in this mode will the command heiarchy and structure function within specified parameters.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always liked the RO2 CO more a utility than management. Only found clans or tournament play CO worked with PR. Should be interesting where it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Wouldn't you agree though that there is no "preservation of power" in Squad because the devs specifically programmed it out on purpose? There are no stats, ranks, ladders or golden stars to differentiate one player from another other than looking at a players Steam profile for hours in game. Bottom line, in a random game situation people barely listen to squad leaders because there is no compulsion to do so. An additional layer of management will also be met with resistance and further non compliance.

It seems like you are talking about something different to the point I made above, but nonetheless I vehemently disagree with the assertion that there is no power imbalance in squad. A squad leader controls his members' spawn points, kits and flow of the game, all because he has the power to kick those members. A squad leader doesn't have to do anything that anyone says, besides an admin... whereas squad members are technically at the mercy of their SL for a good game. 

 

This hierarchical relationship definitely holds a power imbalance, and that is what I am saying that people against the idea of a commander are trying to preserve. They wish to hold on to their "I make the decisions" power. 

 

As for the latter assertion that in public games people barely listen to squad leaders, in hundreds of games I have kicked only a handful of players from my squads for not listening... and I run tight as **** squads, yet members almost always respond well to respectful but clear commands about what to do. I always run open squads, generally full, generally with randoms (perhaps 1-2 friends who are playing at the same time). 

 

I also know that having a commander can be an excellent boon to gameplay and teamwork, having played under many commanders and run the commander position in public matches many times. There will of course be people like in the video I will link below, but they are an absolute minority.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the addition of Commander role, one power-tripping idiot would be able to ruin the game for the whole team, as opposed to just screwing over one squad briefly (since everyone will leave his MOST GLORIOUS "MORTAR SUPERFOB OUTSIDE BASE" SQUAD).


ATM, on most pub servers, I see that majority of SLs don't even know how to play the game optimally. Usually me and 1-2 other SLs are left trying to unscrew the situation.

Addition of Commander role can both fix this (if one of the 2-3 competent officers on the team takes it), or completely ruin the match (if one of the idiots or "impolite" guys gets the role). If the Commander role was somehow limited or voted in, it might work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COC "Do this"

SL1 "why?"

COC "do not question me, do this now"

SL1 "pfft, make me"

 

vs

 

INTEL "I can see bad stuff happening here [markers], SL1 you are closest, can you fix it?"

SL1 "perhaps"

INTEL "here are some markers to help you, one armoured vehicle and around 1 squad"

SL1 "thanks, I have decided that I will do this"

 

For everyone involved cooperation is far more satisfying than orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, suds said:

For everyone involved cooperation is far more satisfying than orders.

I assume that as a squad leader, you don't give orders to your squad members, just information and light suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, suds said:

COC "Do this"

SL1 "why?"

COC "do not question me, do this now"

SL1 "pfft, make me"

 

vs

 

INTEL "I can see bad stuff happening here [markers], SL1 you are closest, can you fix it?"

SL1 "perhaps"

INTEL "here are some markers to help you, one armoured vehicle and around 1 squad"

SL1 "thanks, I have decided that I will do this"

 

For everyone involved cooperation is far more satisfying than orders.

You're describing two different people taking the same role. Changing the title doesn't change the job. I can easily see the Intel Officer nagging SL's to go do things that he can see happening that the SL's don't, and the SL's are "FU, we're on our own program. Must continue to sit on this uncappable point"

 

I really doubt that the CO/Intel officer would have any punitive powers, because that's a recipe for disaster. Either the CO will simply be a glorified SL with more intel, or maybe another role entirely, where besides intel, they can call in off map support, like RO2, or maybe have the ability to drop FOBs, or drive a command vehicle that has ammo and acts as a spawn point. 

 

It'll all come down to what it is now, there are those who will follow a leader (SL) because they respect their knowledge of the game, and enjoy doing it, and those that don't. The same will apply to the CO, just like in RO2, and just like now when you know you have a good SL, you'd listen to what they have to say, If they're an idiot, you ignore them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a simple solution:

 

AdminEnableCommanderMode 1, 0

 

On public matches it's disabled and on Clan Matches and Tournaments it's enabled. You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Here is a simple solution:

 

AdminEnableCommanderMode 1, 0

 

On public matches it's disabled and on Clan Matches and Tournaments it's enabled. You're welcome.

lol that's not a solution though, you're just disabling it. 

 

Instead, players playing the "Commander" or "Intel" role should know the responsibilities that come with it. One of those responsibilities is to be supportive both with words and actions. I would much rather have a commander/intel team mate that is willing to learn and work with me in a positive and constructive manner both ways rather than a know-it-all asshole screaming and sending orders in a hostile manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, CptDirty said:

lol that's not a solution though, you're just disabling it. 

 

Instead, players playing the "Commander" or "Intel" role should know the responsibilities that come with it. One of those responsibilities is to be supportive both with words and actions. I would much rather have a commander/intel team mate that is willing to learn and work with me in a positive and constructive manner both ways rather than a know-it-all asshole screaming and sending orders in a hostile manner. 

We've already established through the discussion in multiple threads that it's highly unlikely the Commander role will be useful in public matches. So instead of trying to dumb it down for the potatoes why not give the role powerful functionality and leave it up to admin to turn it on or off according to the circumstances?

 

I think everyone realizes that unless the Commander role actually has powerful tools like for example the ability to remove insubordinate squad leaders from their roles then the position is meaningless. Then on the other hand if the Commander role possessed that power certainly it could have the potential to be abused as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zylfrax791 Just like any other role, it's usefulness is directly proportionate to the right person utilizing it. Disabling the role is also a way to dumb it down in itself. Additionally Squad prides itself with guides and a bunch of marketing mambo-jambo on steam and YT to increase sales, I can see it now:

 

Welcome to SQUAD. SQUAD allows you to fly airplanes, drive tanks, lead squads, use variety of weapons, play as the role of a commander (subject to being enabled by the admins) and so much more!

 

....if you're going to advertise the game and argue that unlocking important roles as well as ranks don't reflect the values of the developers then the same should be applied to the commander/intel role and all roles while we're at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

We've already established through the discussion in multiple threads that it's highly unlikely the Commander role will be useful in public matches.

I don't think that has ever been established. As in PR (yes, I'm playing the PR card again and again, it's more than 10 years of hands-on testing, it would be incredibly silly to ignore the lessons learned), the commander can act as a reconnaissance in the public matches, while remaining an actual commander in organized gameplay. Both of these functions are extremely useful for any team, without being mutually exclusive. The PR version of commander just worked. I doubt anyone who sunk enough time into learning to play the role properly would disagree. As with any other kit, it had the potential to be very useful in the right hands and extremely useless when handled poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×