Skip to main content You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.

WikiFullscreen ChatVoice Chat (Discord)Org PageF.A.Q.

Topic: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them (Read 4217 times) previous topic - next topic

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
With the obvious stated that Sailor is our supreme commander, it should be apparent to everyone that there will need to be people working alongside him to assist with co-ordination and command.

With our fleet structure and communication protocols still a work in progress, we can't really say with certainty what positions we will need to fill.

General consensus seems to be that the various organisations will have control over their own forces, with high ranking representatives sitting in (voice) chat and co-ordinating together, but with potentially thousands of unaffiliated players participating there will need to be some person/s and procedures responsible for handling them.

My proposal involves middle level "officer" type roles scattered throughout the fleet whose roll will be relaying progress updates and strategic targets to the general playerbase. We'll need tons of those for them to be effective, so choosing them will probably be a case of WE NEED MORE etc (there will need to be people co-ordinating them and relaying info to them as well though).

If we end up deciding that there needs to be "Lord High Generals" and "Grand Fleet Admirals" or whatever, players nominate themselves then we hold a public forum poll or something, like we're doing with the media at the moment? Eventually, that will probably be how we choose our strategic plan as well.
  • Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 07:45:11 PM by Harker

  • Ratu
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #1
I think your proposal has merit, we will certainly need a large number of people to help herd the cats.

  • Benjamin the Rogue
  • [*][*][*]
  • Staff
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #2
Every organization boss is going to want a right-hand position to sailor67, except for those that have outright stated that they will either be completely independent during this op or that they plan on trying to lead Pitchfork themselves.

We're a "peasant" mob hellbent on driving as deep into Vanduul space as possible before exploding gloriously in the name of vengeance. Many of the "leader" titles assigned will most likely be superficial at most, divisive at worst.

That being said, it is hard to get around the human condition, and humans naturally seek out leaders, whether consciously or subconsciously. I don't really know how we can handle this, except to let people naturally differ to who they want. If any one person starts to get out of control, I'm fairly sure sailor67 can set them down politely and calmly. And I don't doubt for a second that if sailor67 had to do that, he would have the backing of the rest of us.

  • Ratu
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #3
Every peasant mob needs its organizers though Ben.

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #4

Every peasant mob needs its organizers though Ben.


Indeed, hence:

it should be apparent to everyone that there will need to be people working alongside him to assist with co-ordination and command.


It's not a team effort if all we're doing is flying in the same direction and no team exists without a leader. Likewise the bigger the team, the more complex the leadership needs to be to operate effectively. As much as any of us have a say over the rest of us, I want this to be as organised and co-ordinated as possible.

  • Benjamin the Rogue
  • [*][*][*]
  • Staff
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #5
I didn't entirely disagree. That's what the third paragraph was about. I just stated some issues with this.

We're shaking out the communications for OPPF to help solve the issue of leadership. Hopefully the DFM delivers when we get it, and we can wring out the different comm systems we've elected for use.
  • Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 11:30:51 AM by Benjamin the Rogue

  • Talkyn
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #6

Every peasant mob needs its organizers though Ben.


I've played my share of mass events in games, and I'll use GW2 as the example.  I have been involved in some pretty large-scale WvWvW battles/wars.  I've been inside 2 different types of guilds and also just part of the non-guild zerg.  I'll tell you what I think based on those experiences.  This will turn into a bit of a text wall, so please forgive me, TL DR, etc, etc...

The first guild I played with was very, very structured.  We had separate Teamspeak rooms for each team captain and his squad.  The captains had special bindings so they could always hear each other, while we mere troops only heard our own captain.  We had a group of payers in a seperate command structure that strictly scouted and reported intelligence to the top dog.  He would put teams where they would be most effective based on the available intelligence, which was usually pretty damn good.  When we worked with other guilds of similar structure, we could execute extremely complex manoeuvres.  Even alone we would harry the drawn out reinforcing players, distract and peel off huge zergs, or eliminate siege emplacements no matter how well they were guarded with only a handful of players.  Being extremely disciplined allowed us to be worth at least 3 times our numbers.

The second guild was essentially a large mob.  We communicated, but only the serious players really paid any attention.  Information was impossible to gather from the general membership, and the odd time we did participate in a multi-guild effort, it was basically, "we swarm here, you swarm there! It's GENIUS!" (No, it wasn't).  No one scouted, or if they did all we got out of it was, "THERE IS A HUGE ZERG HERE!".  Where is here?  What is huge?  20? 100?.  Useless info screamed into TS, drowning out anything else that might have been useful.

After a hiatus, I came back to the game with no guild.  You can't be out in WvWvW alone and live, so what do you do?  You run towards any friendly you see.  They do the same.  Eventually you find that massive blob of players everyone just calls a zerg.  The zerg players might be good at the game, they might not.  They might be seriously trying to win an objective, they might not.  Some of them take off their equipment and start dancing.  They drop siege(which costs gold in-game) without checking to see if anyone has the supply to build it (players can have 10 each, it takes 40-120 to build siege engines).  They don't grab supply when they can.  If attacked from behind, only a handful of players will even notice.  If you try to /yell to get people to do something, you will get 5-10 players to listen to you.  The only things I've seen really get a zerg to do anything are, another huge zerg moving in or running by, a large guild running by ("Let's follow them!"), or the strong evidence that the entire zerg is about to be wiped out.

What is this ramble all about?  I'm quite sure there are a whole lot of players that just don't want to be organized.  Now, you might think that GW2 and SC will have a very different maturity level, but I seriously doubt it.  Most people I played with in GW2 were older than myself, and that includes random people I met and chatted with, not just guild-mates.  You have to remember SC is a long ways off and the current climate of what the players will be like is skewed as a result.  It is really only serious players (mostly) that are talking about the game at this point.

Some people just don't want structure, or to take the game very seriously.  If you go out there and try to force the zerg to do what you say, you will either deter them from the objective with your "stuffiness" or get yourself taunted while they put on all manner of visual shenanigans for the lolz.  Are there players in that mob that want to be involved, serious and organized? Sure there are.  Good luck convincing them to follow you.  Even if you do, the rest of the zerg won't and they will just end up dying unsupported.



So what do we do?



You let the mob, the zerg, the player-ball, do whatever it wants to do.  They are going to be in Operation Pitchfork because the cool artwork and advertising.  We might be able to direct them with similar propaganda directing them towards where high-command wants them.  In-game, if you need it to to be somewhere else, appease to their bloodlust by telling them an objective is nearly dead.  Use the fun term bacon a lot when you do it. 

There has been a lot of discussion on the forum already about letting guilds organize and coordinate their own efforts, guided by the high-command here, and this is the only way I can foresee this working.  The guilds will vary in their ability, but high-command should be able to guess which ones are the most organized and place them most effectively.  If the plan is to take this system, but a huge zerg goes at that one instead, consider taking that one now, since you have the militia man-power to do it.

Now, this whole form of warfare may be irrelevant, because we don't know anything really about how we will be split into instances, how each instance's events will affect the PU as a whole, and about a hundred lesser details.

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #7
Thanks Talkyn, that was a great writeup. My time in MMORPGs (WoW) probably wasn't as extensive as yours, but I had a similar experience. Your conclusions are spot on too, but I think you missed out on something when you never tried actually taking command of the second guild (or else tried and gave up).

Most of my experience these days comes from commanding in Planetside 2, and my outfit there runs regular platoons of 48 players that are primarily made up of the general public. Myself and the other officers in my outfit would lead those pubs such that their discipline and co-ordination would be comparable to our our dedicated players (nowhere near as good, but comparable).

This complements my own time in WoW, where I was recruiting, organising and commanding PvP raids on major enemy cities; raids that consisted of 40 players I had recruited by spamming trade chat for an hour. Myself and other raid leaders would coax these players into a tight-knight cannonball punching through clusters of hostile players to make it to a major NPC boss fight - while also fighting off never ending waves of players coming to defend them.

I've worked out a two step process to herding a zerg.

1. Have people at the top giving orders that are visible, simple, clear and make sense. Have those orders repeated every now and then as a reminder, and have the person giving them be a mature, respectable figure who is clearly in control (fancy titles help here).

2. Have squad/party/flight leaders who know the game inside out, follow orders without question, know exactly what the squad is supposed to be doing at any given moment and are constantly talking to the squad - a constant flow of orders, reminders, morale boosters and the like.

It takes commitment and a huge amount of energy to do either of those positions (not to mention the voice chat is basically mandatory). It takes a long time for people to actually build up the experience, drive and skills and thus rare that you find people who can pull it off. I think that with proper briefing and guidance though, players with experience at leading in the first type of guild you talked about can take the second guild you were in and turn it into something resembling the first in operation.

Those squad leaders make or break this process though, and they need to be in a clear position of control for it to work. In Pitchfork, Sailor67 is the Supreme Leader. You follow orders from the Supreme Leader so if Sailor67 says that Player X is going to be leading Squadron Y to System Z, then Squadron Y will follow Player X to System Z if Player X is willing to lead them.

Just as I have taken complete strangers and turned them into a wrecking ball with my hand on the tiller, so to do I believe that if enough of us are willing to step up and lead Operation Pitchfork it can turn from a mindless zerg into a wave of destruction.

  • Talkyn
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #8

but I think you missed out on something when you never tried actually taking command of the second guild (or else tried and gave up).


This is pretty much what happened.  I have the personal issue of craving structured play but having a very limited time resource.  It is simple for me to spent a few minutes at a time on forums, even writing some long posts, but I can't do a 4-6 hour gaming session very often.

I was directly involved in the first guild.  I helped form the structure because I was involved in GW2 for 6 months prior to release!  After the first week, we turned out eyes to WvWvW.  I lead some battles, served as an officer in others, then became an officer in the community as well.  I couldn't fulfill the play-time requirements to be a captain after the battle structure I helped create rolled out, and my duties as an officer in the guild drained me.  I was burnt out, and disappointed I couldn't be in the leadership structure.   I ended up retiring my post and looking for a more casual guild.

The casual guild was a mixed bag for me.  I had a lot of loose fun, but wanted to smash my head into the keyboard sometimes.  I can't watch a horrific misuse of resources and not try to step up.  My play-time in the second guild really taught me that it's OK to relax and just play the game without stressing about big-picture outcomes if the players around me aren't either.

In my SC guild and in the OP, I intend to serve the established leadership.  I don't have the time or the ego to push myself up towards a key leadership position.  I know I'm prone to burn-out so it wouldn't be fair to the people that would be depending on me.




So if I just want to be a grunt, what am I doing here, racking up the post-counts, taking part in leadership debates and assisting with new-member greetings?




I'm looking to make sure this OP is successful in any capacity I can.  I'll gladly pitch in anywhere I see that could use some of my talents, or that just needs another member's effort.  I'm here to rub shoulders with some of the leadership, not to gain any real recognition or titles, but just to be recognized as someone reliable.  I intend to be involved heavily in intelligence gathering pre-op, and during-op if feasible, so I want people to know who I am and how reliable my analysis could be.  I don't want to be tied down to anything I can't commit to, nor stuck in a rigid chain of command that limits my ability to try and patch a gap I might suddenly become aware of.

Now that I understand your plan for zerg-herding, I'm all for it.  I don't want a snowball of players behind me, but I'll sure as hell help stir them up and point them at who to follow.

This has turned into a bit of a gamer's biography somehow.  You've coaxed it out of me Harker!  Let it stand here, forum mods, Operation Pitchfork admirals, you other major contributors out there in this operation, you say jump and I'll jump.  If you need a hand with something, give me a buzz.  Just don't burden me with any kind of command.  Heck, even leave me alone and I'll still find things that I feel are either missed or insufficiently handled.  Am I stepping on toes?  Tell me.  I'm a big boy so don't worry about hurting my feelings :D

Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #9
Obviously, VON programs and other forms of out-of-game communications might come into use, but in an operation with more than a thousand people, it's virtually impossible to control everyone. There will be guys yelling, laughing, screaming, crying, all sorts of background noise.

Ideally, the first thing to do is get the plan ready. If everybody knows the plan, then at least those who tend to blob or zerg will know in which direction to point their ships. I believe someone already mentioned the "meat shields", they are there to absorb as many AI as possible. Just point them in the right direction and don't expect them to actually do anything complex.

Guilds and other previously organized groups should be capable of more complex behavior, and will already come in with a command structure. You can give them directions, but trying to directly tap into their hierarchy might be counterproductive.

Best way I see is establish a hierarchy comprehensive of all members of the operation but that allows for sub-hierarchies to control themselves while keeping a loose control of lesser organized groups and lone operatives.

A practical example:

Say High Command thinks a station needs to be taken over. There will be two aspects to deal here, securing the vicinity of the station (eradicating enemy ships, disabling defenses, etc) and landing troops on the station in order to engage in "ground combat". The task with the least required amount of coordination needed can be handed to the disorganized pilots, since it's just flying to the station and engaging in combat. The more complex task, landing on the station and taking out the garrison, can be given to the guilds, because they'll need complex maneuvers and greater coordination once inside.

We should always aim to assign roles based on difficulty, since giving a difficult task to a disorganized group would only spend our resources.
  • Last Edit: November 04, 2013, 01:27:16 PM by Commander Deathcall
It's a penguin... with a gun. I'd run if I were you.

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #10
My whole point is that it's very possible to control large numbers of people, and if you control a large enough proportion of a zerg then the rest will follow along.

Regarding capturing a station, that could actually require a large degree of co-ordination and co-operation. There could be long range weaponry which would need destruction by fighters before capital ships can get in range, bombers would need protection when they make attack runs, boarding transports would need protection and the bombing runs would need to stop once the boarding action actually starts.
  • Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 06:16:01 AM by Harker

Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #11
I've been thinking about the possibility of forming battle-groups.

There's a lot of players out there that, while not belonging to a guild, or having only a few friends, might still want to be in a group of people with some sort of hierarchy instead of just being part of the blob.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage the formation of this battle-groups, centered around leader-figures and somewhat balanced (both in numbers and ship types) so as to assign them more complex task than what can give to the blob.
It's a penguin... with a gun. I'd run if I were you.

Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #12

I've been thinking about the possibility of forming battle-groups.

There's a lot of players out there that, while not belonging to a guild, or having only a few friends, might still want to be in a group of people with some sort of hierarchy instead of just being part of the blob.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to encourage the formation of this battle-groups, centered around leader-figures and somewhat balanced (both in numbers and ship types) so as to assign them more complex task than what can give to the blob.


Already started


https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/64217/invading-vanduul-space-operation-pitchfork-lone-wolfs-and-small-team-contact-thread#latest

Hi

Enjoying the discussion but a couple points I think you all overlooking, your taking a tool that works well in small teams and trying to scale it up, it may work one layer up but we are potentially looking at 2000+ 30 to 50 person teams...

Second is tolerance to organization, Most of you have hard core guild/team backgrounds, thus inclined to organize tightly. Those that like a tightly organized group are already in guilds or will be by the beta.  Lone wolf just won't have a tolerance for the same. So yes they need officers but my opinion at this point is let them self select  

Don't let my comments derail the discussion, I may chime in again, but poke wholes in my and your own logic. Ask your self why won't it work......

  • Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 08:02:01 PM by sailor67
Pitchfork Belongs to all of us


  • Benjamin the Rogue
  • [*][*][*]
  • Staff
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Musings on choosing our leaders
Reply #13


I'm looking to make sure this OP is successful in any capacity I can.  I'll gladly pitch in anywhere I see that could use some of my talents, or that just needs another member's effort.  I'm here to rub shoulders with some of the leadership, not to gain any real recognition or titles, but just to be recognized as someone reliable.  I intend to be involved heavily in intelligence gathering pre-op, and during-op if feasible, so I want people to know who I am and how reliable my analysis could be.  I don't want to be tied down to anything I can't commit to, nor stuck in a rigid chain of command that limits my ability to try and patch a gap I might suddenly become aware of.


Well, I've certainly been glad to have you on board, that's for sure!

Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #14
As solo gamer (till now anyway) and lone wolf myself, I would agree to the point that we will self select, if perhaps not in precisely the manner being suggested. I think it fairly likely that most of us that want or are willing to work in a structured group will generally gravitate to the leaders already in place, rather than taking the time to elect our own leaders.

The best way I can think of to try and direct the masses is thus already in place. We have the lone wolf boards, we have the topics (and eventually boards when needed) for most of the different roles that will be present, as people come in they'll gravitate to what they plan to do the most and either follow silently, participate in the topics or, if the topic isn't there, create it.

I can only really speak from my perspective on this, but by and large you cant really lead the independents in any traditional sense, you can however provide them objectives and  point them in the right direction.

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #15

As solo gamer (till now anyway) and lone wolf myself, I would agree to the point that we will self select, if perhaps not in precisely the manner being suggested. I think it fairly likely that most of us that want or are willing to work in a structured group will generally gravitate to the leaders already in place, rather than taking the time to elect our own leaders.

The best way I can think of to try and direct the masses is thus already in place. We have the lone wolf boards, we have the topics (and eventually boards when needed) for most of the different roles that will be present, as people come in they'll gravitate to what they plan to do the most and either follow silently, participate in the topics or, if the topic isn't there, create it.

I can only really speak from my perspective on this, but by and large you cant really lead the independents in any traditional sense, you can however provide them objectives and  point them in the right direction.


Second is tolerance to organization, Most of you have hard core guild/team backgrounds, thus inclined to organize tightly. Those that like a tightly organized group are already in guilds or will be by the beta.  Lone wolf just won't have a tolerance for the same. So yes they need officers but but my opinion at this point is let them self select


That's exactly what I've been saying. Everyone chooses where they fly and who they fly with, but there'll be "official" Pitchfork objectives and "official" Pitchfork squadrons/battlegroups/whatever. We make it really obvious what/where/who each of those are, then everyone just gravitates towards wherever they feel most useful. Those who don't will feel like they're missing out on the action, and get peer pressured into following along (or else die quickly and repeatedly then wonder how everyone else is staying alive). It's how zergs work regardless of size.

We'll probably make a point of saying "We need more S&R" or "We need people scouting system X" though. The player distributions will not balance evenly by themselves so the "officers" will need to encourage reinforcements to move towards specific roles. Thinking about it, Twitter would probably be ideal at calling for extra ship/role combinations; people can get shot down, check Twitter, see what's needed and where then have a plan ready before they respawn.

Enjoying the discussion but a couple points I think you all overlooking, your taking a tool that works well in small teams and trying to scale it up, it may work one layer up but we are potentially looking at 2000+ 30 to 50 person teams...


Which is why we will need lots of "officer" type people, whose only job is to spread out around the fleet and spam targets/objectives/updates via proximity chat. They won't be giving orders per se, and the job will be super easy (fast typing skills and voice chat help though).

Then what we do is we can easily have just one or two people co-ordinating them by giving out region-based broadcast content and making sure they don't bunch up or spread out too much.

  • Jonais
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #16
You can't force leadership on those who are by their very nature independent. You CAN however lead them. Independents will resist any attempt at formal organization, however, they will follow those who lead by example and clearly communicate what the objectives are. As time goes on they will follow direction more readily and become a more cohesive group. I've done this and witnessed this countless times in WoW and while it will be harder with such a large group as O:P it is still possible and really the only way to lead the independents.
Tumbleweeds. A Lone Wolves inspired org.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/TUMBLWEEDS

Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #17
You guys can see what I meant from both Jonais and Justins comments. It is not a "build and they will come" command structure. PF has worked to this point because we have given players of all types an organizational venues to suit every style, from the hardcore guild to the lone wolf solo. We have offered goals that easy to get behind (i.e. fun and epic) with no strings.

So the challenge is how to get he lone wolfs to WANT to organize. It is obvious to everyone that some kind of organization is needed, but to what level? That in all honesty is still up in the air, I have an idea where it is going, but the collective you have as much if not more impact on that than I do.

I will assume that many of you want some kind of leadership role, if your open to suggestions, win the lone wolf's trust, not only in you but in your judgment as well.You have a year to do it so there is time.

This type of dialog is perfect for that,also we have the Alpha coming up, so you will have an opportunity there as well. Essentially we/you are asking someone else to trust you/us to lead so, the dialog and trust has got to work both ways..

You can already see the "esprit de corps" building both here an in the various RSI threads..and we are exactly a month old today. As always, please feel free to knock wholes in the logic of any of this :) And please keep the discussion going      

Pitchfork Belongs to all of us


  • Benjamin the Rogue
  • [*][*][*]
  • Staff
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #18

You guys can see what I meant from both Jonais and Justins comments. It is not a "build and they will come" command structure. PF has worked to this point because we have given players of all types an organizational venues to suit every style, from the hardcore guild to the lone wolf solo. We have offered goals that easy to get behind (i.e. fun and epic) with no strings.

So the challenge is how to get he lone wolfs to WANT to organize. It is obvious to everyone that some kind of organization is needed, but to what level? That in all honesty is still up in the air, I have an idea where it is going, but the collective you have as much if not more impact on that than I do.

I will assume that many of you want some kind of leadership role, if your open to suggestions, win the lone wolf's trust, not only in you but in your judgment as well.You have a year to do it so there is time.

This type of dialog is perfect for that,also we have the Alpha coming up, so you will have an opportunity there as well. Essentially we/you are asking someone else to trust you/us to lead so, the dialog and trust has got to work both ways..

You can already see the "esprit de corps" building both here an in the various RSI threads..and we are exactly a month old today. As always, please feel free to knock wholes in the logic of any of this :) And please keep the discussion going      




This was much more elegantly said than what I was trying to say, but communicates the same idea, about both what I think this websites function should be, and how we can resolve the "Who leads?" question. I only have one hole to knock.


As always, please feel free to knock wholes in the logic of any of this :) And please keep the discussion going


Hole, sailor! Hole!  ;D

  • Talkyn
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #19

As always, please feel free to knock holes in the logic of any of this :) And please keep the discussion going    


As always Sailor67, I'm blown away by your humility.  It is rare a Supreme Commander can grace a discussion with his opinion without crushing the entire debate with his ego.  You say your piece like just another member and open yourself to criticism. 

This is the kind of leadership that makes me want to stand at attention and belt out, "I'll get 'er done boss!"




  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #20

You guys can see what I meant from both Jonais and Justins comments. It is not a "build and they will come" command structure. PF has worked to this point because we have given players of all types an organizational venues to suit every style, from the hardcore guild to the lone wolf solo. We have offered goals that easy to get behind (i.e. fun and epic) with no strings.


I think it's exactly a case of "build it and they will come." If we build a system where there is always a battlegroup waiting for reinforcements, there is always a KOS target, there is always a region that needs updated recon info on; engagement, commitment and participation will soar through the roof. As will the longevity of the overall push.

If we combine that with a round table styled command group for the organised guilds and a clear, no-strings attached "this is what we need, do it if you want" spiel for the lone rangers, then all the pieces will fall into place.

  • JackDaniels
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
  • Former - Shout Box Lurker & Forum - Admin
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #21

I think it's exactly a case of "build it and they will come." If we build a system where there is always a battlegroup waiting for reinforcements, there is always a KOS target, there is always a region that needs updated recon info on; engagement, commitment and participation will soar through the roof. As will the longevity of the overall push.

If we combine that with a round table styled command group for the organised guilds and a clear, no-strings attached "this is what we need, do it if you want" spiel for the lone rangers, then all the pieces will fall into place.


And now the note on my Proposal falls into play... Little detail little fuss....

Mostly that is what I was trying to go with for most of the plans and getting people interested in some proposal plans. As you can see we will have different groups already around here, but as far as what they plan to do with operation pitchfork on their own time is up to them. As for right now, the plans are still going to be vague, but will still help figure out plans once we know where other groups will lay and wait or operate around.

I still like the idea of getting in contact with each of the leaders of the groups that plan to join so they get the chance to share the info with the individuals in their own groups to help formulate their own plans. If they are open to a set plan from us then that is another venue that we already have opened right now.

Mostly we still need to wait for more of the game to be released and more info from the lore... we gotta know more before we can plan and the more eye's and ear's we got out there the better the plans can get... Even the lone wolf is still a valuable individual if they are willing to provide quick Intel from what they have learned.
2j0kx3s.png" width="490

  • Talkyn
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #22

I think it's exactly a case of "build it and they will come." If we build a system where there is always a battlegroup waiting for reinforcements, there is always a KOS target, there is always a region that needs updated recon info on; engagement, commitment and participation will soar through the roof. As will the longevity of the overall push.


I'm not quite sure that is what Sailor67 meant by that metaphor.  We can't just create a command structure and communication outlet and expect it to reach everyone.  Your idea has merit and without a doubt there will be players out there that are not in the big guilds that still want to be directed.  I think what Sailor is getting at is if we want to appeal to everyone, we have to speak to every type of player's motivations for playing and tolerances for structure.  Some players will just want to blow up 1 Vanduul unit.  Some will be in it to explode in a fireball of glory.  Still others will be trying to weigh the risk vs. reward of sticking around.

I think it's important not to build this massive order-giving system that broadcasts out to the masses the orders of the Supreme Commander ("This needs doing", "Attack this system", "We need scouts over there").  If this command assumes that everyone out there that wants to take part actually wants to be told what to do, we could end up alienating a lot of players and could marginalize the success potential overall as a result.  Group-less players can easily be given direction (that they can take or leave) during the event using in-game chat I'm sure.  They generally won't be able to do more than shoot at the red blips on their screen and no one should try to make them do more.  Players seeking structure can hook into the bigger picture through whatever system(s) we end up using in a real hurry.

We need to have a plan, we need to communicate that plan.  We need to gather intel and respond accordingly.  We need to use the hardcore players, big guilds, little guilds, casuals, and the solo pilots to contribute in whatever ways they can.  We need to do this in order to win, and more importantly in order to have this go down as the most fun event in video game history.

  • Harker
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #23
But my proposal doesn't involve giving out orders, only directives and progress updates. The way I envision it is that it's obvious where "Operation Pitchfork" is going next, what they're doing right now, and what needs doing. If we don't have a system for making that stuff obvious while Pitchfork is going on, everything will rapidly collapse into a confused mob and we won't even make it out of the staging system.

Independant players can follow along with these directives or they can fly off into the sunset alone, but at the end of the day if people don't know what's happening and where to go next then there won't be an Operation Pitchfork. There'll be a lot of random ships flying in every direction who all eventually get picked off by Vanduul patrols.

  • Jonais
  • [*][*][*]
  • Enrolled
Re: Who gets to be at the top? Theoretical discussion on leaders and choosing them
Reply #24
The fact that people will be there tells me that they WANT some direction. They don't want to be told specifically to do ie "Hey! You there! Go kill that vanduul!" But more the "There is a group of vanduul in sector X that need killing and Guild Blah needs some reinforcements to help finish off the Vanduul in their area!" and "Can we get an update of what's going on at the Jump Point coming from Orion?" The people there WANT to be part of what's going on, they just need to know what needs to be done.
Tumbleweeds. A Lone Wolves inspired org.
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/orgs/TUMBLWEEDS