Leadership roles.

[Kellzz]

How will leadership roles (if any) be handled?

IE, commanders/squad leaders. (I dont know what people of rank will be called in FOA yet)

Will there be a commander sitting behind the lines, directing all other mechs, handing out orders to lances, telling mechs where and how to maneuver, calling and marking targets (if possible)? Perhaps drawing up a battle plan during transport.

If so, How will it be determined who gets that role? Will a sort of prestige system be used? Or is it who ever decided they want the job can do it?

Larger mechs that can seat 3 people i think were mentioned to fill a command role. Does the pilot decide the 2 other people to be let in? Or can anyone just jump in and help out?

Friendly fire? On? Off? What happens when you team kill?

[Hamilton]

How will leadership roles (if any) be handled?

I can't really answer that.  That depends on how well organized players or player groups will be.

Will there be a commander sitting behind the lines, directing all other mechs, handing out orders to lances, telling mechs where and how to maneuver, calling and marking targets (if possible)? Perhaps drawing up a battle plan during transport.

I do like the idea of making battle plans for coming battle.  We'll see about adding in a "White Board" feature to support this. (it would be more to it, than just a white board...)

As for what a commander is to do and direct battles, that is up to the person.  That person can lead from the front or be a coward in the rear.

If so, How will it be determined who gets that role? Will a sort of prestige system be used? Or is it who ever decided they want the job can do it?

Much like with forming groups.  It would be up to the players to decide the organization and who has what roles.  As with Battlefield 2, there are times that no one wants to be the Commander, and other times more than one wants to be it.

Larger mechs that can seat 3 people i think were mentioned to fill a command role. Does the pilot decide the 2 other people to be let in? Or can anyone just jump in and help out?

The owner of the Mech has first pick of the positions (pilot, gunner, commander).  As for the other positions, hopefully that can be worked out by the players.

Friendly fire? On? Off? What happens when you team kill?

On
Bad reputation and the "killed" player can decide (vote) if you are considered a griefer or not.

[Dead Eye]

If so, How will it be determined who gets that role? Will a sort of prestige system be used? Or is it who ever decided they want the job can do it?

Much like with forming groups.  It would be up to the players to decide the organization and who has what roles.  As with Battlefield 2, there are times that no one wants to be the Commander, and other times more than one wants to be it

What about fraction ranking? Will it determine who has first dips to be the commander?

[DonJon]

I think players should be deciding among themselves who leads in any given situation. Though I can see leadership being determined by faction in certain situations.

For example, if a group of players from a mercenary faction is out freelancing for a major faction and only one of the group has enough renown to get missions from a major faction then that major faction may require that the player they respect will 'stand good' for the mission he aquires. Perhaps giving a bonus for leading the mission if it is successful but applying a penalty if he fails.

In a related topic will there be specific sets of skills dedicated to leadership. 

[bmcketa]

What about when the group leader dies?  Will he be able to designate who the backup leader is, or does it just pop to the next person on the list?

[Hamilton]

What about fraction ranking? Will it determine who has first dips to be the commander?

Faction Ranking will apply with Faction Controlled Squadrons, but not with player organized groups.  First pick is decided by the players; unless it is a Squadron at which case goes with the highest ranking player.

In a related topic will there be specific sets of skills dedicated to leadership. 

Although leadership skill for characters may have limited use with players, they will come in handy with NPC's.  I will need to look up the skills again...

What about when the group leader dies?  Will he be able to designate who the backup leader is, or does it just pop to the next person on the list?

If the Leader reclones, then the Leader still retains command.  If the Leader however did end up dying or going off-line, then the new Leader is either the person that the Leader choose as the 2nd in Command or if not, then the 2nd person would joined the group.

[Kellzz]

My personal opinion, there should be some option to be a dedicated leader for a battle. In the MMOs i have played, most large fights ended up being a cluster, with people hitting the F* key (target closest) or attacking whoever had the least amnt of health. Most of these fight turned out as a stale mate due to lack of leadership. And generally when you had 70+ people of the same faction fighting, the majority are calling for some one to step up. But the issue here, is you will have many people try to herd the cattle at once, butt heads, and revert back to square one. Or one person would take charge, but no one would listen due to the "you're not the boss of me" mentality.
Hamilton mentioned BF2. When i have commanded, there are times when people do not listen. But i have noticed  that if a squad of 6 random people are all out each doing their own thing, and the squad leader starts to obey the orders i am handing out, the other 5 will start to follow the squad leader a rely on him to lead them, while the squad leader relies on me to lead him/her.

If there is a title, and a distinguished leadership position that can be filled, i think that battles will be more organized, and not just who has the smarter cows.

[Sanguine]

I know I'm dredging up an old post here, but it caught my attention.

I agree with Kellzz about having designated leadership roles, but believe there needs to be an incentive to follow the leader.   Without a system in place to encourage cooperation and discourage insubordination/desertion, battles will end with everyone for themselves.   Especially if players are allowed to salvage their own kills.

That said, would it be possible for ranks to include salaries and pay raises from the corporations?  I believe this would encourage good behavior on the battlefield, as players who followed the military structure would be promoted and gain pay and incentives.   Insubordinate players could be demoted and or have pay withheld.   I worry that without a system, as the player base grows a dwindling percentage of people will be inclined to play the game realistically or cooperatively.

The other reason I foresee the need of an enforced rank system is span of control.   In the fire service (which believe it or not, is comparable) that is said to be three to seven people answering to a leader, with the optimal number being five.   Without a span of control, leaders end up getting bogged down and followers grow insubordinate as they feel they are not being listened to.

Corporation controlled incentives/punishments could provide a good balance between independent and corporation pilots as well and provide a good starting place until independent leaders could form their own competitive factions (competitive in pay and/or incentives).

I apologize if this topic has been covered in more depth in another thread.

[Cavadus]

I think you dev types should check out Battlefield's "commander" setup.  It's pretty cool and somehow Dice made watching a map full of dots and like five actual actions immensely entertaining.

[Hamilton]

That said, would it be possible for ranks to include salaries and pay raises from the corporations?

That is an assumed item.  Would not sound right if higher ranks were paid the same.  Although there may be no pay changes due to the field of work.  Example a Private who is a Cook would earn the same pay as a Private who is Infantry.

I believe this would encourage good behavior on the battlefield, as players who followed the military structure would be promoted and gain pay and incentives.   Insubordinate players could be demoted and or have pay withheld.

That may be hard to enforce, at least for a computer to figure out when Insubordination occurs.  Perhaps best to let the Leader have this feature to vote (in fiction terms: provide an Eval of the member's performance) for good or bad performance.

The other reason I foresee the need of an enforced rank system is span of control.

The intent is that each Faction or Race has it own set of organization.  With Mechs and Armored Vehicles, the arrangement may be from 3 to 5 units per Platoon.  Though when in the game environment, this will need to be tested.  To see if 5 Groups of 3 are balanced against 3 Groups of 5, as an example.

I apologize if this topic has been covered in more depth in another thread.

No need, helps to keep things organized.

I think you dev types should check out Battlefield's "commander" setup.  It's pretty cool and somehow Dice made watching a map full of dots and like five actual actions immensely entertaining.

And there is that 3rd Party Feature too, I think it is called ACG or AGC to help plan missions for BF2.

[Kellzz]

ATC Hamilton.

Made by Foolish Entertainment.

[Sanguine]

Ah, thanks for the reply.

I believe what I would be most interested to see would be a solid chain of command.  I don't believe that we as players (especially if none of us are used to working together) can be trusted to responsibly choose a leader in the heat of battle.  Perhaps as you mentioned about demotion, the chain of command could be voted on before hand?  Each player could vote on whom in their group/squad/etc they believed was most qualified to lead.  Players could vote only once and could not vote for themselves.

And since Ikavadas brought up tactics...  Has anyone brought up dummy rounds or a training system?  Squads may be much more inclined to practice tactics if their buddies aren't shooting real lead at them.

[Kellzz]

There has been talk of a simulator system where players can hone skills, the problem with these are that player can spend all their time in here, opposed to actually fighting since there is no threat of death.



As a solution, there would be no score, and players would be unable to engage each other (only bots). but that poses another problem. If players cant engage each other, then why bother using the system?

Many MMO test servers grant the tester/player access to everything in the game, but many people don't play here due to needing to log into another server, and sometimes requiring a special setup to get into it. A matter of convince there. Also it being a test server, it carries a stigma with it, that everything done there does not count.




Think of X-Wing alliance. Fantastic flight sim. Imagine this game being of an MMO type with its multiplayer deal as the simulator. I know i would never leave the simulator, being able to set up whatever scenario i want, fly whatever i want.. Team A could have whatever they wanted, and Team B could have all sorts of mechs, bases, and other events. These would probably be even more popular than the arenas due to no risk of losing a mech.

[Sanguine]

Hmm, in that case I believe dummy rounds would be a good solution.  For players to use them they would have to cover the costs for the rounds, fuel and other expenses; possibly including the cost of renting a safe and private area to practice in.  It could even be required to book the training field in advance.

Another option could be to offer corporate training sessions to teach basic tactics to players.  These sessions could be optional with incentives to go to them, but have a limit as to how many times a player could attend them each month.