Uhuh, and this is clearly a cup, the one that doesn't apply nor accurately reflect a situation...though wonderful, and mildly comical. Maybe you should also see that in my case, the leaking cup is my burden and not for another, why would I inflict it upon another by lending it to them, they can go find their own cup or hell, make their own cup...
Well, some good comments, couple de-rails but I wanted to add; you can feel the frustration building up in game. You can also see the effects of three SL's working together. On the first note, people are coming to the end of their ropes with both sides of this. SL's having no idea what to do and squad members not doing what is asked. However, last night we had a match where not only did the SL's lead their squads, the Alpha SL coordinated between the 3 or 4 (it varied as people joined) squads at it was completely glorious. We won, it was a good fight but noteworthy because we did win. This also illuminates that people are sick of losing and screaming (typing with harsh words) at people to lead/follow. I was thinking back to PS2 and how they set up their Platoons. Not a bad system where one person can start the Platoon (think raid for a frame of reference) and then assign SL's. That combined with the volunteer system, might make things very easy and hopefully eliminate the majority of this issue for good. People always have complaints, but anything would be better than we have now, imo. I agree as well, a Sl that does nothing is actually worse than not having one. Last thing we should all remember: In order to be a good leader, one must first be a good follower.
You get banner bonuses so this is not true. The idea is for this game to follow suit in this regard, to a certain degree at least. If you hit 'v' for Quick Comms, there's actually a greyed-out option for Warmaster or whatever the term they use is.
Regardless of any accidental bonuses invalidating the absolute truth of that statement, the point I was making is that a squad leader that isn't issuing any leadership commands or otherwise verbal orders will make no difference as if he was any other player. Now, if I get an accidental bonus when he's just playing a regular game, that's nice but it's pretty random and I wouldn't be sad if such randomness was rid of to have a chance of getting an interested and engaged leader.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just trying to point out it's more complicated to implement than the person who brought up the idea seems to think it is.
How so? IT's code, code that would go into existing code, yes, and while I won't pretend that coding is easy work, I certainly believe that it's not some mythical hereto unknown code. You seem to have some experience with this, and since I am a budding academic, how about to do more to explain what you mean than essentially saying: Nuh uh.
I mean more in consideration of the ramifications of such a system. Whilst it clearly has to be better than the random system we have right now, I don't believe having the first person to press the button be made Squad Leader would be a good system. It's highly open to abuse unless paired with a means to kick Squad Lead and if we have that... why bother to implement the first part? The second will work fine by itself. I think a better method would be a splash screen on the Squad Leader's screen which says: "YOU ARE SQUAD LEADER [ACCEPT]/[RELINQUISH]" if you hit Relinquish, it assigns to the next highest ranked player in the squad and they then get the splash screen and so-on until someone hits Accept.
