Feedback talk:User/Guild Wars 3 perhaps/Squads and Parties

This have already been implemented I believe? I just skimmed through your Squad idea, and they made a recent blog post on it: http://www.arena.net/blog/jordan-massey-on-the-role-of-the-squad-in-wvw

--Vipar 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, squads will be implemented in GW2. However - based on what I read in that recent blog post - they do not have the option of including parties as part of a squad. My suggestion speaks to allowing not just individual players but whole parties to join a squad and remain a party within that squad. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 04:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that's true, however what would you accomplish with this? The chain of command would just be more entangled. Why not just make your own squad, then (if you got the book to do so) and get your friends to join that? --Vipar 12:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the squad blog, the manual that grants the right to form squads will cost "a substantial sum of gold". Not every one who may be looking to join a squad will have earned enough gold to purchase a manual.

Then there are those players who - though they may have the gold - have no interest in being Squad Commanders. They may want to join a squad and they may even want to be in charge of a smaller party of players within that squad, but they don't want the full responsibility that comes with being a Squad Commander.

As far as the chain of command becoming more entangled, that's up to the individual players. There will be some players who prefer having a hierarchical command structure and find that it actually makes things less complicated rather than more so. For example, let's say there's a free-form squad of 30 players; no command structure whatsoever. The Squad Commander issues an order to attack a certain point. However, there are also assets which require defense and there remains the need to still gather resources while attacking and defending.

If the Squad Commander states, "Attack point X" what happens? Either:

(a) mass confusion as squad members try to figure out among themselves which of them should go attack point X, who should remain behind to defend point Y, who should continue in their gathering duties, etc. (remember, Squad Chat is one-to-many; they can't directly ask the Squad Commander for clarification via Squad Chat). This wastes precious time as the window of opportunity for attacking point X under optimum conditions closes.

or

(b) all of the squad members drop what they're doing and rush to attack point X, leaving point Y undefended and the resources ungathered. This is akin to Jade Quarry when someone shouts out in team chat to rush to the defense of a particular quarry that is under attack. The smart strategy is 2 or 3 players should go aid in the quarry's defense while everyone else stands their ground to continue defending whatever quarry they're already at. This way the already-captured quarries aren't left undefended and easily capped by the enemy.

But is this what happens? Most of the time, no. Instead, 6 or 7 players descend on the contested quarry to defend it, but at the expense of losing the other quarries because they abandoned them. All because there is no hierarchical command structure and no division of labor/assigning of specific roles to team members; it's a free-for-all. I would argue that such an approach in WvW will cost your side the match when facing an enemy with superior organization and some sort of command structure.

One solution is for the Squad Commander to scroll through his or her list of squad members and issue personal orders one-by-one in Squad Chat of who is to do what (e.g."Player A, Player B, and Player C go attack point X. Player D, Player E, Player F defend point Y. Player G, Player H, Player I continue gathering resources.") But that is a huge waste of time and imposes a significant burden on the Squad Commander as a micro-manager rather than playing the game.

How much easier it would be to have parties formed within a squad who are given specific tasks which are associated with the Squad Commander's map markers. After these roles are initially assigned, the Squad Commander doesn't even have to issue orders in Squad Chat any longer for the most common of tasks. All he or she has to do is place a map marker and the party assigned to perform the task that marker represents gets to work without wasting precious time chatting about it. For example, an assault party's leader will know to keep an eye on the attack map marker. Wherever the Squad Commander places that marker, that party leader knows that's the equivalent of a Squad Chat command to head to that point and attack whatever is located there; but it's much faster and more efficient to simply follow the marker.

Also, by delegating the work to sub-commanders (i.e. party leaders), this frees the Squad Commander from being forced to micro-manage their squad. If every time a Squad Commander wants to get something done he or she has to spend a minute or two explaining strategy and issuing specific tactical commands in Squad Chat, that narrowing of focus cripples their ability to step back, observe the entire theatre of war, and formulate appropriate strategies. It would be the equivalent of expecting a 4-star general to fight in a trench on the frontline; an inappropriate position to put them in. Not because a general shouldn't be a capable soldier, but because it's a waste of their talent as a supreme strategist who requires that eagle eye view and insulation from the micro-managing of tactical details to fully realize their abilities.

Lastly, nothing about my suggestion is meant to take away from the ability to form squads in which there is no hierarchical command structure. For those who want to form a squad in which there is one Squad Commander, no parties, and a large pool of squad members who have no specific tasks assigned to them by default, there's nothing preventing that from happening. My suggestion simply adds the ability to form parties within squads and/or parties to join squads and remain a party after joining. Simple as that. If Squad Commanders and party leaders then want to leverage this to their advantage by using it to create a hierarchical command structure within their squad, that's entirely up to them; there's nothing forcing them to do so. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I see what you saying, but I think the whole Micro-management part is intended. It's like playing Starcraft 2, difference being guiding players, rather than computers :P --Vipar 22:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've played Starcraft but not Starcraft 2. Though it's been many years, if memory serves, even in Starcraft a player had the option to group their units into parties/squads/platoons/whatever. At the very least, the player could mouse click-and-drag a bounding box around a group of units and assign an order which all of them would follow simultaneously. This lead to the formation of groups of units with specialized tasks based on their abilities; attack, defense, resource generation, etc.

So if anything, the Starcraft example reinforces my argument that allowing some form of similar organization within GW2's squads would be of benefit. Especially when you consider a Squad Commander won't have access to the kind of grouping tools available to a Starcraft player. The Squad Commander is dealing with real players rather than computer-controlled units. As such, he or she has no true direct manipulation of those players on the field of battle; they must rely entirely on the other squad members' willingness to follow orders. This leads to even less control on the part of the Squad Commander. But if every order has to be issued to each Squad Member individually (due to a lack of unit grouping controls) along with some strategic justification for that action (because you're dealing with real people rather than mindless computer-controlled units), that's going to take forever to get anything done.

That, or the players in the squad will eventually just ignore the Squad Commander because the process detailed above is so slow that it can't react fast enough to what's happening in real time on the field of battle. By the time the Squad Commander has finished issuing orders to 30 squad members based on a particular strategy, the course of combat will have changed to render that strategy obsolete. No leader in any competent military is ever expected to issue orders individually to every soldier in their command. That's why hierarchical command structures exist; because they're fast, they're efficient, and they work.

Conversely, if a Squad Commander has some reliable party leaders under his or her command, then the effort of issuing orders and implementing tactics can be delegated. This frees the Squad Commander to concentrate on high-level strategy; which from my reading of the blog is the role the Squad Commander is supposed to fill. But they won't be able to do that if they have 30 people under their command and have to not only formulate strategies but also plan tactics and then issue individual orders to every one of those players.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting that party formation within a squad is a requirement; only an option. If a Squad Commander prefers to micro-manage their squad, more power to 'em. But for those players who would prefer to have a chain of command in their squad, the simple addition of permitting parties to exist within a squad addresses that need. It's then up to the Squad Commander and party leaders to figure out how to make that work for them. But at least the option exits rather than forcing players into a play style that may not suit them. I thought that was something GW2 was attempting to eliminate. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Squad and party should mix in a natural process

Seems to be common sense than a party could join a squad as a whole and stay a party. But those things are better written and done, as it would be a sore pain if you had to disband and regroup (especially during or arriving in ongoing fights).

Indeed it doesn't change neither squad's nor party's functionnalities... or current guild representation by the way : several chat groups, each with its own layer of indicators (mini-map signs, map icons, pings, target calls, emblem). With one exception, if one of the team members is already in a squad, an unobstrusive confirmation popup will ask her what to do : join the new squad (with the party) or stay in the previous one.

For this reason and many others (like further strategic options, for instance where would-be coordinators share the same party but different squads), I think the option to view and join squad commanders should not be limited to only the party leader.

The squad system is hot-join based after all, what people do with (and within) it is another matter : I concur with ANet by saying that it should impose any type of organization, but only directives.

-- Some out-of-game related topic.

Actually à la MAG... so lets do a very fitting parallel with this PS3 shooter game featuring up to 256 online players simultaneously in the same battle opposing up to three different factions, published in spring 2010.

On "Domination" maps, it means only two sides, but 128 players each, each with an officer-in-charge (OIC), four platoon leaders and sixteen 8-man squad leaders (four per platoon). Responsabilities never would end being cumulated on one (forcefully experienced) officer, but the three ranks could end up in one particular squad. Similar to real-life armies (the british one for instance).

See the short official video explaining the domination map (adn the whole backlog of their video blog) or read down below for a non-exhaustive summary relating to implemented solutions for GW2 similar concerns.

Each officer (indeed the three ranks) provides immediate and different benefit for its nearby teammates (up to the entire company, platoon or squad respectively). Only squad leaders can give objective-driven directives for their own team : pointing in game (or through the map), the objective is highlighted, an ingame marker set, a voiceover sent : then every xp gain around is neatly improved, be it repairs, heals, revives, kills, destructions or captures. Meanwhile all officers have to pass from time to time on the eagle map to call for their two specific support abilities (on recharge) and readjusting their strategies.

Such system brought cohesion to the whole thing : despite not knowing other people around, you cling organically to where the squad leader is - to get his passive and active benefits - and to your teammates because of the party interface giving clues of what (and how well) they were doing, the shared respawn points, and naturally the shared directive. Or you could assist the nearby squads of the same platoon (sharing an attack/defensive front until breached and reunited somehow with other platoons further down the battle) or go your own way... behind enemy lines to sabotage their support or capture a respawn point (pushing back enemy supply line).

And finally despite the sheer number of players, yout own timely decisions can matter a lot (officer or not), and the game stay very tactical.

-- Back to GW2 per se.

Personaly, in our MMO at heart, I would like to see the party leader given the possibility to place in-game marks (not a ping on the map, more like a hero waypoint), maybe looking like the glowing banner of GW1 or more like a light pilar, but anyway only visible to the team.

Second, but it seems to be already the case, to flag targets with different markers as well. And third on the xmas list, a different color in the minimap's scribbling (added to your own different color and the global one for other teammates, that would make a total of 3 and keep things clear).

Thanks for reading, sorry for the disgression. ;) --  Leonim _{[talk·contribs]} 23:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize for the digression. I think these are all valuable suggestions and supporting information. I especially like the idea of a party leader having their own map markers with some way of distinguishing them from the Squad Commander's markers. The Squad Commander issues high-level strategic objectives and indicates them with one unique set of markers while the party leaders have their more specific tactical markers distinct from the Squad Commander's (differentiated by color, shape, animation, etc.).

Regardless of the details of how some form of squad structure is implemented, I strongly feel some form of squad organinzation needs to be - at the very least - an option. Otherwise, I see it becoming a complete and irrelevant mess as a single Squad Commander attempts - unsuccessfully - to coordinate the actions of X-number of real players in real time. Heck, 8 players in Jade Quarry or 12 players in Alliance Battle can't even manage to coordinate their actions most of the time. Believing a single Squad Commander is somehow going to seamlessly and efficiently coordinate the efforts of 20, 30, 40, or more players singlehandely is just wishful thinking in my opinion. That may work inside the offices of ArenaNet where everybody knows each other and the game inside-out after 5 years of working together; but that isn't going to translate over to the larger gaming community come release day.

Without some form of (optional) hierarchical command structure, random pick-up squads are going to get steam-rolled by any squad with the most rudimentary organization. And you can bet good money there will be guilds which will drill on a regular basis on how best to function as a squad. Through the use of squad chat, guild chat, party chat, etc. and assigning duties/roles to guild members in advance, they will devise a means of creating their own command structure (even though the game - as it currently exits - doesn't offer one). In the abscence of any in-game command structure option, those squads will come to dominate WvW to where players will get turned off to playing it because they won't stand a chance in a random PUG squad.

If you want an example of what WvW will devolve into in the abscence of an in-game hierarchical command structure option, just look to Heroes' Ascent. Who wins there most of the time? The guilds which eat, sleep, breathe, practice, practice, practice, and drill, drill, drill for HA. Random PUGs don't stand a chance most of the time. I would hate to see WvW become a mirror of HA as I'm very much looking forward to playing WvW; but I have no desire to have to go to virtual boot camp just to earn the right to step into the arena. Unfortunately, that's exactly what WvW will become unless you level the playing field by giving the random PUG squads the option for some form of command structure to counter the die-hard guilds. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 06:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Further Clarification

Leonim had typed:

For this reason and many others (like further strategic options, for instance where would-be coordinators share the same party but different squads), I think the option to view and join squad commanders should not be limited to only the party leader.

This makes it evident to me that I didn't clearly state my original intent very well. I do not mean to limit joining a squad to only party leaders. I fully agree that any player not already in a party should be able to hot-join a squad at any time; they don't have to be in a party to be able to join a squad.

What I meant was - once a player joins a party - then only the party leader can see Squad Commander icons and join squads. My reason for this was to eliminate the potential confusion caused by having a player be a member of a party which is itself a part of a squad while the individual player in that party is a member of a different squad. If that happens, then it could lead to some serious confusion. For example, Party A belongs to Squad X and receives an order from Squad Commander X to go do something. But player B (who is a member of Party A but a member of a different squad; Squad Y) will only see Squad Commander Y's orders in Squad Chat.

I fully intended that if a player has no party affiliation, then they are free to join and leave any squad they choose at will; as is currently stated in the squad blog on the official site. But once they join a party, they forfeit the right to join squads themselves; that now becomes the privelege of their party leader (to avoid the confusion I mentioned above). If the player doesn't like the squad they're in, then they would have to leave their party and then leave the squad before being able to join a different one.

So an individual player's ability to join and leave squads is maintained until they join a party. Then that right is reserved for the party leader only. To reinstate their individual right, the player just leaves their party and is back to being able to join and leave squads at will.

In practice, party loyalty and cohesion is going to trump squad loyalty and cohesion. It's more likely than not that a party of 5 players know one another or at the very least have played together enough to form some kind of bond and communication. Whatever squad the party leader chooses to join is probably one that was agreed to by all the party members. I think it would be a highly unlikely scenario that an individual party member would find their party leader's choice of squad so onerous they feel they have no choice but to leave their party to free themselves to join another squad. If it came to that, the whole party would probably vote to leave their current squad and go join a different one rather than risk breaking up their party. Guild Wars 3 perhaps 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Squad Commander and Party Leader Icons

Building on Leonim's suggestions for different sets of icons for Squad Commanders and Party Leaders.

Assuming my suggestion of permitting parties to exist within squads is implemented, I think a very easy but effective means of reinforcing the hierarchical command structure of a squad would be to have all of the map markers currently granted to a Squad Commander be additionally associated with each party within a squad.

Currently, a Squad Commander - per the blog - has access to "attack", "defend", "rally", and "bring supply" map markers; but only one set - globally - for the entire squad. What I'm proposing, in addition, is that each party within a squad have their own set of four map markers assigned to them. Each set will be distinguised from the other by color, shape, and graphic or symbol within the icon (while still maintaining a continuity that makes it evident that an "attack" map marker is an "attack" map marker, regardless of which party we're talking about at the moment). The Squad Commander will still have access to his or her four global map markers and everyone in the squad - party affiliated or not - will still see those map markers.

However, for the party-specific markers, only the party which is associated with those markers will see that marker on their map. A concrete example would best illustrate what I'm talking about:

Squad Commander X decides to capture a strategic point but realizes his opponent's defenses are too strong.

He decides to set up a feint by using his global "attack" map marker to command all of his squad members to attack a different location on the map. Squad Commander X hopes this will draw his enemy Squad Commander's forces away from the strategic point that he wants to capture.

Squad Commander X then places Party A's "attack" map marker at the strategic point to command them to go capture it. Party A will see the global attack map marker along with all of the other squad members; but they are the only ones to see their party-specific map marker. Based on previous orders issued by Squad Commander X, Party A knows that their party-specific map marker trumps the global map marker. They can ignore the global map marker and head, instead, for their party-specific map marker to capture the strategic point.

Though this may sound confusing in text, I envision it being very simple to implement visually. I assume a Squad Commander will have some form of squad window which shows all of the players in their squad. If the ability to form parties in a squad is also added per my original suggestion, then the party leaders would naturally be listed in this squad roster, as well. Whether or not members of a party are also listed in the squad roster, only the party leader, or the party members can be toggled to roll up or down underneath their party leader's roster entry is a discussion for another time. Regardless, the party leader will be in that roster somewhere and will be diffentiated from non-party squad members by the set of 4 party-specific map markers I mentioned above. It's then a simple matter of the Squad Commander clicking a party leader's map marker and placing it on the map to issue a party-specific command.

It would work in principle much like the hero flags of Guild Wars. There's a global flag which orders all of your heroes/henchmen to congregate at the flag. However, there are three individual flags which can be used to command the first three heroes/henchmen in your party to move to locations other than the global flag. Same concept but applied to real players in parties within a squad.

Now that we've covered the Squad Commander's map markers, I believe the party leader should have their own map markers, as well. These markers would only be visible to the members of that party; no one else in the squad to which the party belongs would see them. Extending the concept put forth above, each party member would have a set of icons next to their name distinguised by color, shape, number, symbol, graphic, etc. The party leader then uses these icons to issue orders to their individual party members.

Using the example from above, let's extend it to the party level:

Squad Commander X has executed his grand strategy of a feint in an effort to capture a strategic point. Party A has been given the task of attacking that point.

It's now up to Party A's leader to figure out the specific tactics of how to go about capturing the strategic point.

Party A's leader assigns defense duty to Party Member #2 and Party Member #3 by clicking on their respective "defense" icons and placing them on the map. Party Members #2 and #3 now go to those points to watch their party's back in the event the enemy realizes they've been duped and attempt to rush back to the strategic point.

Party A's leader then places "attack" map markers for Party Members #4 and #5, ordering them to capture the strategic point. Party A's leader then assigns herself the task of patrolling and scouting the area while the rest of the party goes about their duties.

Guild Wars 3 perhaps 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)