Following orders (Obedience) Score/Ranking

[wildcat140679]

Your Joe-average outfit and especially random squads in PlanetSide 1, there was little to no guidance and if the squad/platoon leader was putting up an effort in instructing and guiding his troops, very few cared about those orders. (With the exception of dedicated outfits that made good use of communication to coordinate attacks and worked as a team.)


I expect the mission system in PlanetSide 2, that it will change this typical squad behavior in PS1 somewhat.

I'd very much like to see some system keeping track of how many given orders you complete or failed to complete because you where to far away when the set squad/platoon objective got completed.

To some people having good scores, showing off that your a good proper trained combat grunt that knows how to obey and execute orders properly will matter. Some Outfits might want to use this score/ranking to see if some one is worth advancement or not, or even worth joining the outfit at all.

And for other it's just a score/ranking that is meaningless.

[Bags]

That'd be an interesting stat for outfits / squads.

[Ranik Ortega]

Change the name to "Mission Efficiency" and I think it will sound a bit better :D

[wildcat140679]

Change the name to "Mission Efficiency" and I think it will sound a bit better :D

I had a hard time picking a name, but yeah, "Mission Efficiency" has a much better ring to it :D

What ever it may be called, the general idea is there, what I assume outfit who are less casual play and more focused on organized combat and squad/platoon warfare will have better use for this score/ranking.

[CidHighwind]

Really like this idea. Having some accountability for those fourteen year old "I can be Rambo in a team game" mentalities is a good thing. That being said, I do think there should be an option for squad leaders to turn this off, or create multiple mission objectives, simply because at times, its more effective to create 2-3 man squads all doing their "own thing" behind enemy lines. If this system doesn't have a way of being turned off or modified for those 'controlled chaos' situations, then I would give it a big thumbs down.

[Tool]

How do you think this would be calculated? I don't think it would be fair if it was solely based on mission success as sometimes you will loose fights.

Love the idea, not sure how it would be figured though. How to gauge success and failure aside from either you did or didn't do it?

[Grimster]

Yeah sounds like a very good idea but like mentioned before. I have problem seeing how this would be calculated in a proper and correct way.

[Volw]

^

I don't think it's possible to objectively measure it.

The simplest solution - proximity based 'scoring' goes out of the window the second I mention 'what about gal pilot' or someone else who's doing something equally important.

[Tool]

Depending on how far their data collection goes, it may be possible to catagorize accepted missions by type? Perhaps different ratings for Transportation missions or recon missions. That may be one step to solving the Galaxy pilot issue stated above.

There's a lot of variables on the path to figuring success or failure in a mission. Some type of player rating system, commanders given the ability to rate others on success may be a possible route. If there's no benefits or penalties given based on rating the abuse by larger outfits would be a moot point as there isn't anything gained really.

Or perhaps word of mouth is best route? If your a player who knows how to get things done consistantly, people posting missions (if able to accept who picks their missions when someone tries to) may look at the people wanting to take the mission and your name comes up, they'll probably give it to you.

[Lartnev]

I suspect this is what the mission system is going to do.

[dm Akolyte]

I would prefer some tardo NOT being able to penalize me for not following his stupid orders. Especially when the only reason he's able to order me around in the first place is because he's sunk more hours into the game then I have.

[dm Akolyte]

Also, all of you are imagining yourself as the leader. Sorry, that's not how it'd work.

[Treerat]

Couple of problems with that sort of concept (even if I personally like the idea).

A) Some players would assign objectives that were completely unachievable simple to lower others ratings. Imagine a pick-up squad with a CR2/ BR 10 as the leader with most of the rank & file being BR 6-8s being told by their platoon leader to evict a full platoon of CR4/ BR20s from a crack outfit from an interlink CC they have had time to fortify and is 5 minutes away from swapping over, without any support. Exactly - it's not going to happen. How do you weed about that sort of "here is an impossible task you have no hope of completing - no matter what happens your mission efficiency is going to take a hit" order?

B) The opposite of A, how about "milk run" missions that someone gave to their friends solely to pad their rating? Think someone giving orders to attack a completely undefended and totally irrelevant bunker just to 2 CR4/ BR 20s just to pad their rating.

C) How would such a system handle how suited a player is to actually carrying out orders. Say someone is a tank driver with only minimal infantry certifications. How would the system deal with that player being ordered into a close-quarters combat against enemies who completely outclass them in terms of equipment.

D) Mission failures. No matter how well planned something is, there is always the chance of failing a mission simply due to bad luck (ie Galaxy is found by a reaver squad, the 3-4 enemy reported are actually 3-4 full squads, random CR4 finds your AMS and drops an OS on it when most of the squad is respawning there, etc). How would a system deal with failures due to circumstances beyond the players control?

[kaffis]

I think what people need to remember here is that mission assignment is (probably) entirely voluntary.

Your squad leader doesn't know his elbow from his ear? Time to find another squad anyways. This is how it works in PS1, isn't it? Or do you guys just join up with a squad and run off and do your own thing if they're idiots, rather than looking for a new one?

The mission you're assigned doesn't take into account your capabilities? Reference the above, or slap yourself on the forehead for picking the wrong mission if it's not assigned by a current squad leader.

Along with Mission Efficiency Ratings, I'd like to see a Commander Efficiency Rating. Let me check out my squad leader's credentials to see if he's got his head screwed on straight.

I'd imagine that it would be ideal to have some difficulty assessments built into both ratings. Fail at the mission your commander gave to you to stop the take-over of an area that was already 90% complete, and with overwhelming force? That's got a challenge rating of 9 out of 10, and you don't take a big hit for failure (but get even more points for success). Fail a milk-run with your squad against 2 enemies? Not so forgiving.

I'd want the CER to help encourage commanders to set reasonable expectations, as well as weed out just the poor leaders. It would be a fine line between discouraging repeated futile attempts and making nobody willing to take a long-shot that just might work to great impact, though. I'm not quite sure where you draw that line.

[NewSith]

OP idea is great. But. What if I'm a lone sniping wolf, and THAT is how I enjoy this game?

EDIT but the idea is still great. It might actually solve many HR problems for outfits.

[SliceTheCake]

Maybe count how many orders followed, that way even if your not good it still shows you listen.

[TRex]

I like the idea of the OP.

Howether, I would also like the system to be a 2 way thing. Is the guy dishing out the orders worth listening to in the first place, and a scoring system to reflect this too. With enough negative votes would the one giving out orders be restricted enough to allow for someone else a tad more competent to be more prominent.

[Dagron]

Sounds kind of like gearscore to me, it may cause more problems than it solves.

[Saifoda]

I would prefer some tardo NOT being able to penalize me for not following his stupid orders. Especially when the only reason he's able to order me around in the first place is because he's sunk more hours into the game then I have.

^ That.

Also, all of you are imagining yourself as the leader. Sorry, that's not how it'd work.

^ THAT.

Couple of problems with that sort of concept (even if I personally like the idea).

A) Some players would assign objectives that were completely unachievable simple to lower others ratings. Imagine a pick-up squad with a CR2/ BR 10 as the leader with most of the rank & file being BR 6-8s being told by their platoon leader to evict a full platoon of CR4/ BR20s from a crack outfit from an interlink CC they have had time to fortify and is 5 minutes away from swapping over, without any support. Exactly - it's not going to happen. How do you weed about that sort of "here is an impossible task you have no hope of completing - no matter what happens your mission efficiency is going to take a hit" order?

B) The opposite of A, how about "milk run" missions that someone gave to their friends solely to pad their rating? Think someone giving orders to attack a completely undefended and totally irrelevant bunker just to 2 CR4/ BR 20s just to pad their rating.

C) How would such a system handle how suited a player is to actually carrying out orders. Say someone is a tank driver with only minimal infantry certifications. How would the system deal with that player being ordered into a close-quarters combat against enemies who completely outclass them in terms of equipment.

D) Mission failures. No matter how well planned something is, there is always the chance of failing a mission simply due to bad luck (ie Galaxy is found by a reaver squad, the 3-4 enemy reported are actually 3-4 full squads, random CR4 finds your AMS and drops an OS on it when most of the squad is respawning there, etc). How would a system deal with failures due to circumstances beyond the players control?


In regards to:

A: I really doubt this would have any kind of trolling aspect to it. That would be like saying we shouldn't have friendly fire because people will TK each other. It happens, but it's not a huge problem and can be dealt with pretty easily. As for the rest of it regarding impossible missions: That is a good point, however maybe you don't have to receive "orders" from anything higher than platoon level (pl can accept or decline orders, etc...) and pl's are typically in the fight with the guys, so to speak, and they don't want to fight a losing battle any more than the joe the rifleman does. To further counter this negative, you could have it be that a concerted attempt (there would need to be various algorithms or whatever mathy type things needed to determine this) that will give the same points even if they objective is not accomplished -- something that was very much lacking in PS1 was that if you were fighting a losing base defense there was not a lot of motivation to do so because you would not get bonus BEP for it, unlike the attackers who would get ~10k BEP once the base was cap'd.

B: Go back to the old style with CEP/BEP where it is dependent on how difficult the capture is. I've had base caps that have netted me 14+k CEP and I'm sure others have had even higher, and then I've had base caps that were only 20-30 CEP total because it was way easy and there was no resistance -- gal on bd, drop gen, hack, rinse repeat etc...

C: Very good point here, I got nothing to add to it.

D: I kinda addressed this in my response to A, but your point about about the reavers finding your gal -- either get back in the gal (yes it's a pain and might cost some resources) or ask the sl/pl to change the mission. If they don't want to change the mission, it's all kinds of stupid-easy to leave the squad/platoon and make your own squad/platoon and then make good missions.

More to follow.





@Kaffis. Love your idea (I've seen variants of it floating around somewhere) about the CER; makes very good sense to me. Keeping leadership accountable is one of the most underestimated, misunderstood, under-appreciated, under-everything pretty much, keys to anything being any kind of successful.





Dagron definitely has a point, too. This system (or one like it) could end up just causing drama between the armchair commando "leaders" who either didn't join the actual military but "always wanted to! *starry eyed*" or just have social issues (KILLFACE comes to mind) and the rest of the population (i.e. 90ish%) who just want to play a shooter and don't give two shits about some other gamer thinking they're in charge of something.

It can even come down to a point where you gotta say "Look, if you want order and structure and discipline, there's this great new thing called the armed forces and they got lots of it and will pay you to do it; you just get to sit on the receiving end of all of that for several years before you even get to think about 'ordering' someone else around." (/rant. <apologies to any thin-skins offended>)