You are talking like there aren´t going to be incentive mechanics in the game to follow commanders orders. Well done incentives (loot/exp/whatever if you follow commands) can make that the majority of the player-base to follow orders, even if it is only to satisfy their greed/lust for power. It can even get expanded to make clans winning "prestige/honour/favor of the dark gods/WAGH" every time its users follow commands and thus getting other kind of clan-bonuses (cosmetic or functional) + making a little competition between clans in every faction. With those things a commander has 1) people at his disposal & 2) An easy way to know which clans are compromised with the cause. Another aspect is communication, the war council should have some in-game place to organize-make strategy's + some broadcast to talk to a "zone", a "clan", "champions" (see below) or the "whole team". It would be awesome if it can even promote individuals to "champions" that would act as leaders of squads that are made on the moment (the leader can invite users or the users add themselves to his squad): this mechanic is in Guild Wars & while its not THAT used (because it lacks an incentive, like a boost to something for being in a squad) it helps to organize pubs in a far easier way that if only 1 commander had to control 1000 people at the same time.
For example, if you win a campaign, that faction's war council get a global buff which increases stats or gives a slight/minor buff for all faction players on the planet for their next campaign.
Could work, stats as in more money in percent due to you gain more territory. However instead of stats i believe it would be cool if options were available instead. For example the war council agrees that pushing vs let us say the Eldar, it would be wise to increase global movement speed so you gain like 1% movement speed, or when your fighting ork´s it would be wise to increase damage so you gain 2% dmg increase against Ork´s only due to it being damage buff it will be effective only vs ork´s. So by let us say giving more damage vs Ork´s buff, you give incentive to players to engage Ork´s due to it being the most favourable engagement, while the ork´s could perhaps increase defence by 1% or so globally. So if the buff is vs some specific race it becomes 2% while if it is a global buff it becomes 1% so to speak due to it being good against all. So if we are going to do it wisely, we can then let us say an absurd amount now for example. You fight vs 2 races currently Ork and Space marine, judging by the map and how ferociously they both are pushing one could adjust the buffs, so if Ork´s can not pull the resources at the time to be of any great danger one could instead focus on giving buffs that are good vs space marines, let us say 5% dmg increase or something like that only good vs space marines. But if the sides are equally strong and push equally good, you might want to go with a neutral global buff such as 3% fire rate increase, which would help every csm out there but as well as encompass the buff globally vs any race. It is not as good as a 5% dmg buff vs one race but it does the trick in helping out. Buffs depending on what you attack, who you attack, as well as buffs against who you defend or what you are defending from, may it be vehicles or infantry.
Also npc driven Push-vehicles for example for their next campaign, SM will have extra dreadnoughts as a kickstarter in the beginning of the campaign, they will be available for a certain time as tanks pushing the frontlines. Or a big single elite unit vehicle which you can spawn with combined rewards and resources as a pusher. An airstrike force bombing certain areas, giving maybe a small headstart. Don't know if it seems overpowered but it would be nice with different variations of benefits minor or major.
No. No. No no no no no! Voting on leader rewards is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but would be toxic in practice. But your point about personal gain is spot on. I'll try to pull together some of the disparate threads together. Leading in open pvp MMOs is a world apart from general MMO small-scale leading. In a raid group, or a guild, you can select your membership. You have, in effect, tools to enforce compliance should they be needed. You're a small enough unit that everyone has contact with the leader, so problems in either direction can be spotted and dealt with maturely, and you're in control of your organisation. You very rarely are trying to organise something beyond your ability to oversee (e.g. Your group, or your voice chat). In open world leading, we're not really talking about the squad level, but the big scale. Where you can't control who is there and who listens, you don't have any virtual authority but people's belief and willingness to follow, and you're not able to give time personally to anyone, not even other warband leaders, for more than a few moments. Herding cats is a good phrase. There's a reason why armies are not formed out of random groups of people turning up to the battle with no leaders, and why over time all military forces have moved further towards professionalism. It's far more effective. But in open pvp worlds we have the former. Leading is draining, especially when things are going wrong. My experience leading in Warhammer Online showed that, and burnout was a major problem amongst war leaders on both sides. Larger scale games like planetside, EVE or EC are worse. It does get progressively harder as the scale rises. Being a good leader helps, as does a scattering of charisma and positivity. So does a willingness to work with random groups, even though that increases your headaches. So does a knowledge of the psychology of motivation, knowing that even if it would make sense to dump your disorganised and random players in the back lines as a support and defense role, you can't. They simply won't wait - they don't have enough reason to potentially sit out the battle all evening just because you asked. They need to be given easier tasks, or tacked to a better war group and, yes, one of your better sets of players that you'd prefer alongside you is sitting back. In case. Because it's that or lose the randoms, and their numbers can carry the battle. No-one denies that there's a sense of achievement and satisfaction from getting it done and winning, and most of that comes from the person themselves. But it's hard work, and six straight losses where the leadership gets blamed makes you want to either kill someone or storm off shouting "Fine, if you're such a genius, you lead." But you have to bite down on it, because everyone is frustrated - you're just more frazzled and exhausted from all the things you're trying to do on top of playing the game. EC is unusual in that leaders are actually embedded in the game, with at least some tools to assist them and with recognition amongst the players. And players give their support to elect them. That's a good thing all round. What it also gives us a chance to do is recognise and say "thanks" for the additional things they will be expected to do. That shouldn't mean epic weapons, or massive personal gain. The actual value of the reward is irrelevant. It's just something that says "Yes, we appreciate what you're doing. Cheers." And that is needed most of all when things are going wrong. Voting to reward the leader with a massive XP boost when we win? Well, very kind, but we just won. I think most leaders will be happy with the win. When you've just been utterly annihilated in the campaign? Well, why would the players vote to reward a group of leaders who've just lost. That won't incentivise them to try harder next time, will it? So just at the point when your leaders are at their most demoralised, playing back the mistakes in their mind, blaming themselves and trying to pick up their own morale to learn, do things differently and come out smiling and motivated...what happens? Their faction, metaphorically speaking, turns round and kicks them in the proverbials. "Oh, so terrible that you all think our efforts were worth nothing, eh? That's the view of the faction, is it? Well fine. Allow me to resign and save myself the trouble", etc. There's been a lot of talk about leaders and what they need to know and do and be. But let's not lose sight of the fact that these guys are players, and people, too. They're just as prone to the same emotions and mistakes as the rest of us...and we owe it to them to remember that, if we're expecting them to give up their time and energy to give us a better shot of winning the campaign.
I know it sounds counterintuitive, but you should categorically NOT buff the winning side in a future campaign. You have to assume that the reason for their victory might not just be skill, but an underlying imbalance. And making it easier for them next time around may help to reinforce their dominance over the others. That could get poisonous fast if you're on the losing sides. Victory in a campaign should be rewarded there and then, in whatever form the game gives. If you do want to kick it forwards, a bonus to XP gain (but slight) for the next campaign would be fine - anything that's not an explicit player vs player or team vs team advantage. Because for the next campaign, the default position might be to give a small buff to any side that got annihilated. Particularly if it's not the first time that's happened to them.
I was just innocently joking mate Relax and enjoy This is a golden answer Never buff someone that wins, never, reward the losing side so they level up with the rest, however the buff should not be absurd, but possibly a stacking one per defeat, resetting and disappearing once they win (with a limit of course, otherwise you will have WoW situation in that the losing side got god-like after a defeat streak)
Of course I'm Jaded, I still do it because there aren't many people who can do it with any real competence. My argument is that people need incentives to lead such as Cosmetics to make them stand out, Leading in of itself is not a reward and it really is essentially a second job and a lot of stress.
