Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

[Ind1go]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

But, indigo, you prove the point that it is unimportant.

As you said, you went in, got killed once and got a win.

How is that remotely a reflection of your skill especially in that particular round?

Think of all the ways of using this fact to your advantage/disadvantage.

If you enter a game then leave, relying on your team winning in your absence then it is 50/50 as to whether or not you get a positive result. So it can't be used as a means of cheating as statistically speaking it all balances out in the end. You can't know for sure that at the beginning one team will DEFINITELY win and one won't.

The biggest plus point is that people who are winning stay in a round and those who are losing and leave STILL LOSE. If they stayed in they might still lose but they at least have a chance, however small, that they can help their team win.

So because the randomness of leaving the round means that the actual number of wins/losses will have little meaning for anyone who has played for 24 hours or more, the ratio is the meaningful value.

[Ind1go]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

I also think that the difference between a good commander and an average one is HUGE. IMO a commander that sits at the back is at best average. To be a good commander you have to be behind your troops, helping out and lending your support.

Think about it - if you know where enemy forces are (using UAVs and scans) you can be positioned in relative safety (no chance of being ambushed) yet still lend firepower in a battle. When your assets have recharged you pull away from the front line, use them, then rejoin the battle. If you die then what is the impact? One lost ticket and a 15 second delay in re-using assets that should be recharging anyway.

[Princess_Sophia]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

I personally would love to see the win/loss ratio broken down into three catagories: win/loss ratio as commander, as squad leader, and as squad member. The win or loss would go towards whichever catagory you played the majority of the round as. I think that this would be a lot more telling and would make the ratio mean a lot more than it currently does...

[evilzucchini]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

While this may or may not be true, I know from experience that she is a good commander - she always helps us out immensely. Also, her combat score is 22,844 - so she can handle her own on the front lines as well.

Oh, I am not arguing that she is a bad commander, I am just saying that having a lot of points does not necessarily mean one is good ESPECIALLY if they are running around a lot.

Personally, I find that to be a conflic of interest. If I am running around, I am more likely to give myself UAV than the people who need it most. And I am more apt to defend my ass then I am to give prompt UAVs and supplies to those who need them.

[evilzucchini]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

Think of all the ways of using this fact to your advantage/disadvantage.

If you enter a game then leave, relying on your team winning in your absence then it is 50/50 as to whether or not you get a positive result. So it can't be used as a means of cheating as statistically speaking it all balances out in the end. You can't know for sure that at the beginning one team will DEFINITELY win and one won't.

The biggest plus point is that people who are winning stay in a round and those who are losing and leave STILL LOSE. If they stayed in they might still lose but they at least have a chance, however small, that they can help their team win.

So because the randomness of leaving the round means that the actual number of wins/losses will have little meaning for anyone who has played for 24 hours or more, the ratio is the meaningful value.

I completely disagree that it is a 50/50 chance.
1) People, when losing, tend to leave the server. I know that if my team is getting it's ass romped and I can't even escape the one base we have because it is surrounded by tanks and other vehicles or l33t players.
2) People tend to switch to the winning team if they can. Rarely do people switch to the losing team. Only instance is when people want to play together, they might switch to the losing side.
3) People who play together tend to do well for their teams. So, when bunch of clan members or friends join and play together, they get on one team. They tend to stay in one server as it is difficult to find servers that are what you want and have the right number of slots available.
All three of these things mean that open slots are more likely on the losing side. So I don't believe there is a 50/50 chance.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with your assesment of commanders. All of the good commanders I have had HAVE been sitting at the base and everytime I complain about a commander and the look to see who it is, he is off running around or in a plane or something. I will agree that on a 16 player server, your point makes sense. However, on a 64 player server, things can change so rapidly and the loss of that ONE person on the line is almost meaningless.

On top of that, it is a good idea for the commander to keep the entire battlefield in his head. Getting distracted by running around takes away from this.

I will, however, agree that on a 16 player server, that it makes sense for the commander to run around. But, if you are 32 or more, I would argue that the commander needs to sit back and concentrate on commanding, not fighting.

[[UT]MajorHavoc]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

While this may or may not be true, I know from experience that she is a good commander - she always helps us out immensely. Also, her combat score is 22,844 - so she can handle her own on the front lines as well.

not trying to be a d!ck or anything, but what is her win-loss ratio?

[DLWebmaestro96]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

not trying to be a d!ck or anything, but what is her win-loss ratio?

456:234

[imported_Toxic]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

456:234

Plz post her pix. ASL?


Just kidding.


I don't know if a good commander can make a bad team win. I have played maps where there was NO commander, and the team still won. I do know that a good commander helps MY game alot. I probably get 25% of my kills because of proper UAV's and supply support.

[DLWebmaestro96]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

A good commander can't make a bad team win, just as a good team can win with a bad or even no commander. A good commander, however, can nicely compliment a good team and can provide that extra edge.

[Ind1go]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

I will answer your points first then talk more about good commanding :)

I completely disagree that it is a 50/50 chance.
1) People, when losing, tend to leave the server. I know that if my team is getting it's ass romped and I can't even escape the one base we have because it is surrounded by tanks and other vehicles or l33t players.

Yes, that's part of my point - those people will leave and STILL have a loss registered on their account... so they have been outfought and will suffer for it despite trying to "cheat" the system.

2) People tend to switch to the winning team if they can. Rarely do people switch to the losing team. Only instance is when people want to play together, they might switch to the losing side.

And that is why I think autobalance should be mandatory for all ranked servers. Seriously, unless people are WANTING to cheat why else would it be off? It ensures that teams are fair on numbers and 99% of the time there are lone wolfs that can be swapped over without disrupting squads. A small pause at the beginning of a match to allow people to change teams freely before autobalance kicks in would let people join teams with friends, or there could even be a randomiser on public servers that mixes the teams up for each new map - dunno.

3) People who play together tend to do well for their teams. So, when bunch of clan members or friends join and play together, they get on one team. They tend to stay in one server as it is difficult to find servers that are what you want and have the right number of slots available.

Though this is true, clan members working together are usually MUCH more effective than a bunch of lone wolf noobs. But your comment has little to do with the win/loss ratio or good commanders - a good point tho. I actually prefer playing with or against squads like these as it is how the game should be played and offers a great challenge.

All three of these things mean that open slots are more likely on the losing side. So I don't believe there is a 50/50 chance.

I think we've got confused about my point here. I am trying to say that win/loss ratio IS important as it is hard to cheat the system. As proven, you can't simply dive in or out of servers to get wins. My remark about 50/50 is that if you start a round then leave quickly, it is 50/50 whether or not that in the next 20 mins your team will lose. Granted, playing on a server heavy in clan players working together may skew odds one way or the other but even so over time it will average out - sometimes you will play against clan ppl, others without clan ppl. I don't mean that your chance of winning a round if you play from start to finish is 50/50 - that depends on too many other factors really - but in reality on servers populated with people of random skill (which form the bulk of BF2 ranked servers) then the outcome of a round is usually close to 50/50.

Onto commanders :)

Furthermore, I completely disagree with your assesment of commanders. All of the good commanders I have had HAVE been sitting at the base and everytime I complain about a commander and the look to see who it is, he is off running around or in a plane or something.

Agreed, a commander who sits in a plane or flies a helicopter is a waste of space and can't do both at the same time. Commanders are needed for four things:

1) Spotting/UAV
2) Supply drops
3) Artillery
4) Directing squads

Spotting/UAV
The sign of a truly awful commander is one who refuses to use the scan function and relies on the UAV. We can all probably agree on that. A good commander can either pre-empt a UAV request or rely on good squad leaders to request it when they need it.

Supply drops
In theory, squad leaders should request supply drops to help their squad and use their view from the front to judge best where supplies are needed. In practice, good squad leaders are few and far between so the commander needs to make these decision for themselves. It's true that the commander can make a judgement about where a drop is needed from the tactical view but in my experience it's MUCH better to be close to the main battle to see for yourself where it's needed. You can then make a better call about whether or not a drop is needed, something that a commander relying on the tac view can't do as effectively.

It's worth pointing out that using supply drops on assets are occaisonally a necessary evil. If you have no engineers, or more likely ignorant engineers, you must repair your own assets using supply drops. Failure to do so means you are taken out the game. A commander sitting at the rear with no assets is a waste of space. A commander in an APC at the front line with no assets is still useful.

The argument for being an engineer as commander is a good one but IMO is flawed. If spec ops are destroying your assets, when you are going to repair them you are essentially lining up for a spec ops vs engineer battle. Spec ops win every time. Better to be a more combat orientated class and protect your engineers while they repair before planting ambushes for the next wave of spec ops.

Artillery
Dropping artillery on your own troops is not only annoying for them but counter-productive. If you kill 2 men from each side you've probably accomplished nothing. The trick is to scan > spot for friendlies near hidden enemies > artillery behind enemy lines. Let your troops capture CPs themselves - if they fail you can artillery then, before they try again. Though 1.03 has seen more unscrupulous commanders bombing their own people, I think the removal of TKs is a good thing overall.

Directing squads
Ah, if only people formed squads. Even if I want to lone wolf it I will form and lock a squad, so my commander can at least ask me to do blow up assets, do a bombing run or repair assets. However, the big problem is having squads that listen to their commander. Most simply ignore orders, rendering the system useless.

A good commander knows when to order a squad and when not to though. Sometimes if you have an alert, capable squad then it's best to let them get on with it. Squads and commanders need to earn each others trust. Commanders should only really order squads when they really need to - e.g. if a lone wolf is heading towards a CP, ordering a squad to intercept is useful. Simply pointing them at CPs randomly is usually a waste of time as the battlefield is too fluid.

I will agree that on a 16 player server, your point makes sense. However, on a 64 player server, things can change so rapidly and the loss of that ONE person on the line is almost meaningless.

I disagree, CPs are captured faster with more people around. Likewise having more medics/support/engineers around mean your forces last longer and even the simple fact of having more guns shooting at the enemy in one location means you are making more of a difference. Think about it. A commander sitting in the carrier will spend most of his time waiting for things to recharge! A commander at the front can accomplish more and even if he dies his assets will still be recharging.

On top of that, it is a good idea for the commander to keep the entire battlefield in his head. Getting distracted by running around takes away from this.

The battlefield changes too quickly for this ESPECIALLY in more populated servers. If a commander is roving around in an APC, pauses, scans and sees enemy close by he can probably engage and kill them before spotting for others etc. If I am in an APC I can spot someone moving towards an unguarded CP. I then spot for my team and head off to defend that CP - I already have an advantage as I know where the enemy is with a good degree of accuracy and they don't know I am coming. Tactical surprise counts for a lot as whoever fires first usually wins.

You make some decent points but I think I have found a great balance between fighting and commanding. I really don't want to sound like I'm bragging or anything but since I started a combined fighting/commanding way of playing I've played about 20 maps, won 13 gold/2 silver/1 bronze medals and won 18 out of 20 games. What I am trying to say is my system is working really well for me and my teams. I really can't see any reason to change the system as it's working! I just don't want too many people to copy "my style"

[Ind1go]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

One more comment - a commander sitting in a bunker with his tac view on all the time is MUCH more likely to be knifed in the back. One sitting in an APC and switching locations constantly certainly won't be, nor can they be hit reliably by artillery

[18Zulukiller]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

Win lose ratio dosnt mean a thing its just a guide like every other stat in this game it dosnt show true skill or what that players actualy been upto in the game its just an idea. Ill give you a prime example i was on the OS|clan server last night i joined the chinese side they were loseing when i joined so after a couple of minutes the round was over and we lost. I carried on playing and as we were losing again my teammates all started to leave worst thing about it auto balance wasnt turned on so eventually after a couple of rounds the teams ended up 3 v 15 . I have to tell you i proberly played the best ive ever played in my life at BF2 i was getting on average 20+ kills and only 2 or 3 deaths per round i was unstoppable. But needles to say with it being 3 v 15 we lost every single round so me and the 2 other guys played the game of our lives but we still lost.

EDIT: BTW i forgot ive played a bit of commander and have had many commanders and by far the best commanders are the ones that camp the team dosnt need a super soldier it needs a commander. And if your commanding properly typeing messages to your team talking to squads leaders and spoting enemy and keeping an eye out for that indidvidual soldier that needs resupplying (they dont get the big parachute on the map only squad leaders do). Then your way way to buisy to be running around on the battlefield doing **** id much rather have a commander that camps and does his job properly than someone running around doing a half arsed job IMO.

[Ind1go]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

I love it when people thoroughly read all the posts in a thread :roll:

Your story is a prime example of why autobalance should be on. Furthermore, though you make a good point about the negative aspects of people leaving servers, you don't highlight the occaisons where you are winning and the opposing team leaves in droves. People leaving servers etc. balances out in the long run. What makes the difference is good teamwork and also a competent commander.

[18Zulukiller]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

I love it when people thoroughly read all the posts in a thread :roll:

Your story is a prime example of why autobalance should be on. Furthermore, though you make a good point about the negative aspects of people leaving servers, you don't highlight the occaisons where you are winning and the opposing team leaves in droves. People leaving servers etc. balances out in the long run. What makes the difference is good teamwork and also a competent commander.

I understand what your saying but ill give you another example in all my time of playing bf2 i have only ever and this honest to god ever jonied the winning team twices at the end of a round . But i have joined the loseing team hundreds of time with only a couple of minutes to go.

EDIT : lol i read every post mate except your very very big one ive already one today the one about the guy and his oppinion of the 1.03 patch your big post just seemed to be the ever side of peoples arguements and i do totaly agree ranked serves should have teambalance on as a rule for all ranked servers.

[193d Klink]

Re: Good Commanders- Critical to winning the map

The way the "Commander" role is played is personal choice. What 1 person thinks is the "Best" way a commander should be played is usally not the way another person sees it.

I definately can tell 5 minutes into the map how the command role is going to be played out and if I can rely on constat UAV and Arty support during the game or not. If I see a commander up on the front lines I know it's going to be sparatic support if best. One may point out that a commander being up on the front lines is helping out because he can "See" whats going on. Well he isn't much use to the team DEAD either.

I play commander when no one else chooses too and on some maps I roll my eyes and tell myself if I can get through this without getting booted I did a good job. Since some maps, the commanders toys get destroyed a lot.

My style of play is sitting back outside a rear flag zone (Defending it) and playing with my command screen up 90% of the game. I have yet gotten knifed by the enemy (Been knifed by immature players on the same team though) because running a Sat Scan will ALWAYS show where the enemy is at.
"One sitting in an APC and switching locations constantly certainly won't be, nor can they be hit reliably by artillery " but leaves you more prone to Special Forces C4 attacks since your area of view is so limited. Yet you will argue that you can see them coming....well so can someone laying in a building or bunker yet have the 2 advantages - Not sitting in a High Profile vehicle, element of suprise.
I usually let the squads do their own thing but will direct them when I see a flanking manuaver that they can't on the ground.
Ind1go, your play style is more BF1942 lone wolf style then squad base. You even said so yourself farther back in this thread, just not those words. Using commander assests to suit your needs instead of a larger squad who may need it more. Yet, everyone has their own style and will play that style....

There is no one way that is the right way to play commander.
(Yet, I do see a commader in a plane 100% combat ineffective in his duties as a commander)