If it is something just like a big 'Attack Here' symbol then there is no purpose to the war councils as you can see how well that leadership thing worked in Planetside 2.
I think having an in-depth leadership system would be great but some of these ideas sound a little far-fetched to me. Giving a handful of players control over a faction sounds like a recipe for disaster in my opinion. It barely works in the real world where the leaders are held accountable much less in a video game where everyone has anonymity. The most feasible system is where the council make suggestions about strategy and the players are given incentives if they choose to follow them.
I fail to see the point in that, no one will bother to follow them and they will be something that is abandoned in the first month or two at most. The leadership of Axis and Allies was in the control of a very small group of people since launch in ww2ol and it worked fine.
The point is that if you give people enough incentive, they will follow orders. If capturing a random objective is worth 100xp while capturing an objective designated by your leader is worth 200xp, I think most people will follow orders simply to unlock items faster. Give the council tools to help their faction succeed but don't allow them total control of where or when the players can fight.
You don't see a problem with offering incentives for potentially bad orders? You earned NOTHING from following HC orders in WW2OL and it worked because people in the war council were respected. I can't see that happening, all you will create is one massive zerg per faction following the orders, The real organized forces won't bother to listen to HC orders especially if they aren't being given by one of their own members. This worked in WW2OL because the leadership was stable, wasn't done by popularity or any kind of artificial statistic measurement. EVERY SINGLE ATTEMPT to do things like this through open election has failed colossally.
Individual orders should not be the main concern for the war council unless you want to make it huge in numbers. They should decide the overall strategy, not bicker over tactical decisions. Otherwise you will put a huge strain on the council members and bring resentment as soon as they aren't online anymore. Tactical decisons need to be made on a level of guilds and guild alliances. Things that form organically, because you need to trust in their immediate judgement and there will always groups that operate differently. If both groups have a seat in the war council nothing but drama will ensue
While creating a politics-free War Council is a noble idea, I do not think it is feasible. Humans are easily corrupted by power and glory. Either will the members engage secretly in petty bickering and powermongering or a single charismatic megalomaniac will take control. It is a fundamental part of the human condition. Besides, what fun would be a War Council, where every member is simply a well-greased cog? I want drama, tension and politics! Infighting and posturing between guilds/warbands/whatevers! I want to see a faction drowned in its own blood, because they were too divided to fight effectively. Is that not an essential part of the grim darkness of the 41th millenium? War not only outside, but inside as well.
You do know that total transparency goes against backstabbing, plotting, lies, intrigues and manipulation, which is the only real use for a political system in a MMO, don't you?
It doesn't.Transparency should show you what the council does, not why or to what greater cause. The art of making politics is to reach your personal goals while seemingly giving the masses what they want, transparency only works against bad politics.
OP is under the assumption that 1) People want to be given orders 2) People will obey orders even if given I for one am not going to listen to ANYTHING someone else has to "order" me to do. Going to play the game the way I want, not how someone else wants me to play.
