Results 21 to 40 of 172
Thread: [VS] State of [RPS]
17-10-2013, 02:30 PM #21
I agree with the sentiment that a culture shift is needed. I don't want to see a new outfit it's just that I am just sufficiently pessimistic that I doubt the culture shift will happen without a new outfit. There's been so much talk about these topics over the last year I feel a sense of "nothing ever changes". Also, we should be clear about out purpose and values if we're switching to serious play all the time. It suits me but it may not suit all readers of RPS. If someone reads RPS but doesn't want serious play are we still the outfit for them?
17-10-2013, 02:42 PM #22
Right before I went on my short hiatus from planetside I didn't think it was bad at all actually, even when we were in single channel everyone did as ordered and fell in step with BL/SL (most of the time) so has there been a regression in the last two weeks again? I've mostly seen positive postings in the forums lately . I mean you could still get frustrating nights but that wasn't the rule at all, so what's happened now?
17-10-2013, 03:08 PM #23
I agree with Cooper. Being an open outfit doesn't mean you have to cater to everyone that joins. It's more their choice than your obligation.Itsbastiat, Dawngate
Bastiat, Planetside 2, Miller NC
Therin Katta, FFXIV, Cerberus
17-10-2013, 03:11 PM #24
And we still get people that do not do even that. In the past that didn't matter that much, since we had the numbers. Nowadays though, even if only 3-4 people are not following basic orders, that is ~15-20% of our force. It has a huge impact.
Also, the performance of everyone else has dramatically improved. Even maintaining our past performance is not good enough anymore. If we are to enjoy the game, besides the occasional jokes and silly moments, we need to be able to hold our ground consistently. Otherwise we are the farm. And that is not an enjoyable experience, no matter how witty the banter is.
17-10-2013, 04:32 PM #25
Then make stuff happen Cooper and reinforce decisions. TACGIR fell apart because there were, of course, protests at every time of the like four times I tried to get that going. I then quit the game because I had exhausted any enjoyment in the game for six months trying to create a venue for more serious players, which failed every single time due to the more causally inclined miniority ruling of the more tactically inclined majority.
I'm sorry, but being tactical has always been against what RPS is as every single step in that direction has been met with a lot of resistance and no real enforcement of decisions. Cooper, you always figured we could sort it out ourselves and didn't seem to realize it wasn't that great being that guy that every time asked to play a different way.
Without real leadership nor a hierarchy we have been stuck with democratic inertia and that every person's voice weighs as heavy as the other, which is great in theory, but which doesn't work when there's like 100 people involved. The problem has been that the casual voice has always weighed more heavily then the more tactically inclined. There has always been a fear that RPS is becoming something else, a fear that was reinforced by a select few that are now probably gone, but that ruled the outfit via the basis on that RPS is for everyone. Well, it isn't, as that everyone never did include the players wanting split comms or more tactical play. The basis has always been that we are not very serious.
Tacgir and stuff would've probably worked if it was enforced. It wasn't. It was totally allowed to protest when I asked if anyone wanted to play in a tac squad and to be a total dick to me in these instances as well. What should've been established was that this sort of behaviour wasn't to be tolerated and would lead to kicks. Instead it was seen as something part of the democratic jazz and nothing was said.
Splitting of to RPST would've fixed the issue outright, and I must say I was surprised when this got shutdown very quickly by you Cooper. Normally you want to discuss everything til every single person is okay with it, but this was just not allowed. Now, RPST would be a straight up bad idea as we are not even enough people for one outfit.
Anyway, if you want the outfit to change and be more tactical, all you need to do is support the players striving for that and to also make decisions and to make sure they are enforced. We only have on real leader and the whole communism thing of let's all agree on stuff obviously has never worked in our favor. Look at the logo - it took like four months. The same is true for tactical stuff as the right to play in a blob and have a chat always trumped the seriousface players, which made us all quit.
I don't mean to drag this up again and I frankly don't care that much as I know it wont change (I can still enjoy the game somewhat in bursts), nor do I have the time nor energy to really care, but if you want it to change it is and always have been very simple to fix. If you want to change the whole culture, you must realize that this will exclude players. You must also be ok with this (I totally am but you knew that already). Then again, doing that and pushing for the direction the majority actually wants would be, in the very essence of the word, democratic. So do that, and do it with rules and with showing how tactical seriousface play can be a LOT more fun then the running about.
17-10-2013, 04:36 PM #26
Agreed with everything Ridebird mentioned."Halo is designed to make the player think "I look like that, I am macho sitting in my undies with my xbox""
17-10-2013, 04:40 PM #27
As a general (and particular) note, direct democracy works, but it requires that all participate in a responsible manner. As I've stated before, we do not have democracy, we have a meritocracy, based on the merit of who talks the most.
Last edited by MrEclectic; 17-10-2013 at 04:46 PM.
17-10-2013, 04:58 PM #28
I think that pretty much all systems work for sufficiently small numbers.
When it comes to hundreds of people of voices, strong, clear, leadership and some sort of basic hierarchy is basically required, even if it is for playing a videogame. Having few people that have proved themselves having more responsibility and power then the rest is pretty much the basis of any working organisation, be it an outfit or a government. That's real democracy.
17-10-2013, 05:06 PM #29
I agree with much of Ridebird's post but wouldn't single out Cooper. Cooper's actually been crying out for other people to get involved in leadership so it's not his fault that there haven't been many people taking on a leadership role. The criticisms Ridebird directs at Cooper I think should be addressed to every member of the outfit except Cooper. We all knew that leadership was there for the taking but the vast majority sat back and watched and a brave few (mostly those that PL'd) had a go and got mixed results. Some succeeded then got burnt out (e.g. Boriz, Ridebird) others still try (e.g. CMaster) but I think the reason the culture changed is because no one felt they had the right to try to change it. That's kind of fair enough. You'd need to be quite the egotist to join an outfit and then tell it's hundreds of members that now is the time for cultural change. It's taken us a year of introspection to say we want to change so maybe now we can do it to ourselves but I don't think it's right or fair to blame anyone for not singlehandedly changing it already.
I also agree that RPST right now is a bad idea due to outfit size. Are we serious about turning RPS into RPST though? Would anyone have the heart to kick someone who just redeploys too slowly if they don't respond to warnings etc.?
17-10-2013, 06:20 PM #30
Cooper is the only real formal leader we have and we were never allowed to have any other leaders. I would've easily jumped at the chance to take on some formal power position six months ago but I don't think I really said this. The issue was that Cooper, and others to be fair then, thought formal power was completely meaningless and that just us being more active and vocal would lead to others respecting us in all occasions, and that this would be totally fine. It never was and when I voiced concerns on this they were routinely ignored time after time.
I just don't think I function very well in this extremely loosely organized group of folks as I am allergic to endless talk without action. I think basically all of our problems would've been fixed with clear and working hierarchy, and no, it probably is not fair to blame Cooper, but I saw you (Cooper) as the main protester against divided leadership with formal, defined, voted in, positions of higher power and with decision making capability, at the same time as you were often way too swamped to handle everything. You were also very clear with this, but instead of saying "hey we should have officers, your MO was "um just handle it" and everyone just shrugged, tried to act, which led to discussions, protests, and so on, til nothing was done and I and others came and said Cooooppperrrrrr please fix this.
Hence why I perhaps blame you again, I don't know. If it's unfair, I'm sorry, but I did think you really needed to divide power as you obviously couldn't handle it all. Yes, I know you thought we should deal with it, but it never did work very well.
It didn't work. We needed to formalize officer positions and divide responsibility and leadership. Even our smallest attempt at this such as the HR-team took like two months to happen. Now we're super small again and that form of leadership is probably a bit unnecessary, but yeah, I don't know how the whole tactical thing will happen without proper working hierarchy.
edit: I should probably be clear that I currently lack the love for the game that I had and that I do not have the energy nor time to really be some sort of leader. I still just mainly felt a need to vent about this kind of stuff as it never was sorted. To change the culture, I just mainly think you need good squadleaders etc and that they are just not questioned when they are leading, and that insubordination and lack of willingness to learn needs to be questioned. Not necessisarily lead to kicks - but that it is brought up, discussed, and seen as lack of respect for the person making the effort to lead.
The motivation to be more tactical should simply be that you want to win more and achieve more with less.
Last edited by RIDEBIRD; 17-10-2013 at 06:31 PM.
17-10-2013, 11:25 PM #31
I agree with Ridebird's thoughts here, more or less, but I also think Wally has a point in nobody else stepping up to handle the situation. Either way, things are different now, and I really do think that RPS in its current form could handle a transition into a tighter, stricter group with a few more rules and a more organised... organisation. I would be wary of doing this without having a proper chat about it though, and it might be most fair to, if we actually want to do this, start a new outfit anyway, with the express purpose of catering to mor organised play. I'm not sure what that would do to RPS though, given our current player numbers, that might more or less kill the "old" outfit, which would be a shame in a way.
Meh... I don't know. I don't play quite as often as I did, and I think that's mostly because of two things: the game has become a little bit rote by now, and all the doom and gloom on the forum is a bit off-putting, to be honest.
I say we decide on a course of action, and execute it decisively, whether that be a new outfit or remaking the old, or doing fuck-all. Just let that be the end of discussion and move on.
What say you?
Oh, and this is really the wrong thread for this kind of discussion...
18-10-2013, 12:10 AM #32
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
18-10-2013, 02:32 AM #33
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Boston, MA
I'm gonna be sad if I finally get time to play (and a decent framerate) a month down the line and you guys are all gone. I just want to say I've enjoyed playing with everyone on this forum no matter what direction things take. Continue being excellent!
18-10-2013, 04:27 AM #34
I have been trying to get some kinda leadership in the outfit for a while now.
I wasn't playing PS2 for the best part of two months and tried to leave it with people in place to make things happen. From what I was seeing; with "theme weeks" and the air-squad stuff and the like things really were getting a whole lot better. It was really encouraging.
A lot of that seems to have died down a bit by now. I would probably put that down to dwindling numbers.
Even so; prior to October I think the outfit was showing that we can actually play tactically on an everyday bassis and organise some quite specialist ways of playing as part of how we play.
I only saw what I saw in these forums; but I was seeing some really positive discussion and some quite upbeat stuff on us playing more strategically, tactially, being more effective and organising intereting things. If you were playing during this and I read the forums wrong, do let me know.
This was happening because people who wanted to make stuff happen were stepping up and making it happen. It kinda died out because a lot of people drifted away from the game.
My problem with a strict hierarchy is that it discourages people who wanna organise things like air squads and the like, ebcause they might not feel like they have the power to ask people to do it. What we seemed to have, for a little while, was a situation where anyone who'd been with us for a while felt able to start setting stuff up and getting it going. That's what I think we should be striving for.
I don't disagree that we need leadership. It's one of the reasons I pushed to re-vamp what are now girofficers. Where we needed leadership was in-game. We needed better SLs and radio ops. So we totaly overhauled the rank, demoted everyone, and required everyone went through the basics; was told very clearly what we expected of them and how to do their role.
I'd always said that the overhaul for girofficer should be followed by a similar Balloon Leader overhaul. We've been somewhat delayed on this, though CMaster gets my thanks here for hosting outfit chats in my absence.
I think leadership can be fixed as part of the long-time needed revamp of the Balloon Leader role. Whenever I've discussed it here I've always asked that part of what we make the new rank be is an accepting of responsibility. The role should perform two main functions a) show that the outfit respects your leadership and b) ask that you take on the responsibility to exercise that leadership.
Point b is the important one. We have a large number of people who are capable of making things happen, but who often don't put the effort in. What we need to do is encourage people do do so by making it clear that, yes, the outfit actually wants you to tell them what to do!
Also, Ride, the kind of "we don't want serious face stuff" attitude you were hitting before you left has, it seems to me, dissipated. Things like the air squad and theme weeks I think show that.
So, yes, we need leadership. I've been saying that for some time. I've been saying that even before you went on your hiatus Ride. It's why I made really clear that you had control over TACGIR stuff. But, what I realise, is we also need is a bit more damned respect for leaders. But I think, from the feeling I get, is we're in a position to foster that in the outfit now. We're smaller numbers, more long term players. We don't have a lot of casual players anymore.
What I don't think we need is a strict decision making hierarchy. That will slow things down and discourage people from making things happen. What we need is something fairly flat; a decently sized group of outfit members who have been handed & accept the responsibility to 'drive' the outfit. I think the much needed BL revamp can do that. We also need to make clear that we encourage anyone, regardless of rabk, to make stuff happen. I've seen that happen with training sessions; we should do that more.
Still, this is a lot of old hat we're discussing. We need to have an outfit chat and just make stuff happen.
I've finished my PhD corrections so can dedicate my spare time to the outfit for the next couple of weeks.
Here's what I will do:
1) Host an outfit chat next Wednesday discussing BL (leadership) and fostering tighter tactical play that suits our lower numbers now.
2) Make the BL revamp happen within a week of that outfit chat
3) Whenever I play I will push hard for strategic PL, tactical SLing and close owrking with TVA
Here's what everyone reading this and wanting what we have discussed will do:
1) Attend that outfit chat. If not, then post in the thread I will create for it and put their opinions in there which will be read out in the chat
2) Make clear what will help you take shared responsbility for driving the outfit and help you feel like you can take more control over how the outfit plays
3) When you are playing for the game actually push for these things. Offer to SL, offer to PL. When SLing; don't ask people if they want to be tactical, just tell them.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
18-10-2013, 04:46 AM #35
On the wider picture: I've said for a while now the outfit needs to be in a position that, were I to drop off the face of the Earth, things would be okay.
I think we're there now, Ride. It's no longer the case that it's "down to me".
I resent it when you say "we were never allowed other leaders" as that's not ever how I've tried to run things. I have always discouraged people from asking me for permission, trying to make it implicit that if you want to make something happen, just do it. Moreover, I've even been explicit about that. Directly asking, nigh begging, people to step up and organise things.
There was a general inertia to the outfit over early summer. Members were very reluctant to do much. I don't see how a more formal leadership would have solved that.
To be honest, it's always seemed to me that formalising leadership was actually a need of the leaders: Of people who needed some kind of hierarchy to draw on to, in their own minds, justify them asking people to do something. What I've tried to encourage is people asking others to do something and go along with their plans because they actually believe their plans for the outfit are worthwhile and are able to gather support to help them drive those ideas. In my mind that's a much stronger kind of authority than a formal hierarchy. I've seen people do that, in this outfit, and seen it work.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
18-10-2013, 06:18 AM #36
Now that thing went from state of the game to state of the outfit. Can mods put your discussion about it to apropriate topic?
18-10-2013, 08:31 AM #37
Yes, you always did ask for people to step up. The issue always was that since there was no hierarchy it was fine for completely new people or people playing once a week to come in and oppose playing tactically or whatever, and that got very tiring for me and others. Basically, this system highly discouraged people to step up as it became a monumental social task, not something that comes with a position.
And yes, as you said, I very much needed that system. It was fine for the first few attempts to try to change things and make us more tactical, when like five people opposed me and made sure it didn't happen for the other 40, but that does get very tiring after it continues to happen for like six months. People also saw this and people also never really showed much respect for leaders during SLing or BLing, making it even less likely for people to step up. The critique and social pressure is what kept us from evolving and yes, a hierarchy would've fixed this.
Now, it is of course pointless and we ARE small enough to be run communism-style. The meeting and all is fine, but then it needs to be swift and to make sure that when leaders are leading, they follow and leave their critique til after the session. If they don't like that they can just play on their own.
That's what I mean as well - if you want to play tactically and change the culture, others will potentially be excluded and that must be fine. I don't think this will happen, but since this has been a major worry in the past, it needs to be put out there.
And sorry, Bankrotas, I don't think there's any other threads being used that often in the PS2 forum any more.
18-10-2013, 08:59 AM #38
18-10-2013, 10:05 AM #39
18-10-2013, 10:11 AM #40
I like Dom's idea way more. We need a restart of this thread anyway. It's too big.