US Leadership

[{GG}otham 812]

6 minutes ago, Dillan said:

When the only time you can win, is when russians play you side, its almost certainly because off a skill gap. That's an easy issue to address.

I disagree with this whole statement personally. Although it often helps to an extent, players switching from RU is not the only time US wins. There are numerous variables as to why the US lose. I'll list a few,

• RU is significantly closer to Comms and TC. TC is no question, and from experience RU can have boots on OBJ by the time we even get sight on comms. (This plays into the next point)
• 3rd person exploitation. People who get on the objectives first, their chance of winning goes up significantly as as soon as they have an orsis out and a hill infront of them, killing them is like trying to play wack-a-mole blindfolded.
• The inexperienced running wars. I think we're kidding ourselves on the general competency of SOC members. I for one am in favor for rarely letting WO's run war, but it seems like everyone is completely alright with letting the equivalent of an e-5 in a soc faction run war. Because someone passes a medium skill level tryout filled with mundane tasks, they're suddenly accepted as capable, even expected to be capable of making non-retarded decisions in a war lead position.
  ^ Too add on to this, this is not to diss entry level soc members or WO's, this is pointed at officers, and even my own failure to maintain standards of the qualifications of War Leader.
• Something 1MD is about to work on more, war communications. For the US, in game radio is the only thing really used. If we bring back the idea that teamspeak is highly encouraged for war.(based on where factions are deployed, not talking about stuffing the entirety of the US in War room because that was a shitty idea). I've noticed no one on US in TeamSpeak is using it for war.

 

[Lex_ 506]

3 minutes ago, {GG}otham said:

I disagree with this whole statement personally. Although it often helps to an extent, players switching from RU is not the only time US wins. There are numerous variables as to why the US lose. I'll list a few,

• RU is significantly closer to Comms and TC. TC is no question, and from experience RU can have boots on OBJ by the time we even get sight on comms. (This plays into the next point)
• 3rd person exploitation. People who get on the objectives first, their chance of winning goes up significantly as as soon as they have an orsis out and a hill infront of them, killing them is like trying to play wack-a-mole blindfolded.
• The inexperienced running wars. I think we're kidding ourselves on the general competency of SOC members. I for one am in favor for rarely letting WO's run war, but it seems like everyone is completely alright with letting the equivalent of an e-5 in a soc faction run war. Because someone passes a medium skill level tryout filled with mundane tasks, they're suddenly accepted as capable, even expected to be capable of making non-retarded decisions in a war lead position.
  ^ Too add on to this, this is not to diss entry level soc members or WO's, this is pointed at officers, and even my own failure to maintain standards of the qualifications of War Leader.
• Something 1MD is about to work on more, war communications. For the US, in game radio is the only thing really used. If we bring back the idea that teamspeak is highly encouraged for war.(based on where factions are deployed, not talking about stuffing the entirety of the US in War room because that was a shitty idea). I've noticed no one on US in TeamSpeak is using it for war.

Adding on to what Gotham has just stated, I know I have no room to talk about leading wars because of my past with Green Beret but, RU get to both Comms and TC before the US does. In fact, RU can have snipers on the road about the time people are going through the middle of CO. And I understand that rank is important in terms of having someone lead wars but let's not shit on the fact that some lower enlisted (who have very many hours of experience on Garnet with a few officer positions under their belt) are definitely qualified to lead a war. What does need to change from what I've seen is blaming the warlead for losing a war when the responsibility of leading a faction in war at your specific objective is on the officers of that faction, and hell, even higher enlisted. Stop passing that blame to the warlead because rotations rarely do anything and are often risky unless the faction you're rotating actually has leadership online at that time. I've watched Army officers (2LT and above) host the briefing prior to war and then go AFK without putting someone else in charge, not naming any names as it has been a week or two since then and I suspect that they've stopped doing that. I definitely agree with not letting US SOC with the rank equivalent of E-5 and it confuses me on how an officer can actually give someone permission to do that seeing as that officer could just do it themselves. And going back to December, anybody below the rank equivalent of W-1 wasn't allowed to lead a war, in fact WOs weren't allowed to either unless stated otherwise by a high officer.

 

34 minutes ago, Dillan said:

When the only time you can win, is when russians play you side, its almost certainly because off a skill gap. That's an easy issue to address.

It's definitely not because of a skill gap. You of all people should know how important leadership is when it comes to war, seeing as you have held many different high titles. Both RU and US have skilled players but leading well enough for people to listen to you wins a war more often than not. And communication is key too, which I categorize under leadership.

TLDR: Use TeamSpeak, listen to an officers orders, have competent war leads and the US should win a war. To address something in Vibe's original post: the relationship between officers and enlisted are important. Having a close, but strict, relationship will not only end up in you being respectable but also give newer players the chance to learn how combat works on GG. For example: giving your faction PT for someone in your faction's major mistake, but then teaching them how to take an objective and fix that same mistake so that it doesn't happen again. PT can always be fun too, it's literally Garry's Mod.

[Dillan 750]

Honestly this might change when we swap to the mid map, as the meta will shift to a certain extent. Thats just theory, and might be untrue in the end.

[PhatPropane 36]

50 minutes ago, br0ken- said:

That is very true, But that's somewhat irrelevant to what the post is stating, A huge problem of US is more leadership wise rather skill wise, There are pretty skilled players on US too, But imo there's a major problem with officers on US especially army

With all due respect, I want to hear what is the problem with army officers? I am confused as to why everyone thinks that we have a problem with our officers.

Edited April 20, 2019 by PhatPropane

[PhatPropane 36]

1 minute ago, br0ken- said:

From my experience, Most army officers tend to get super cocky after getting officer, Minging during DB (RDMing each other infront of lower enlisted isn't a good look you know), Keep in mind this is what I see even though I am an RU main, Who knows what else happen. 

Okay great, it is something to keep in mind and to spread to all the officers.  Thank you for actually telling us what you think we need to fix.  

[CodyDrax 135]

31 minutes ago, PhatPropane said:

I am confused as to why everyone thinks that we have a problem with our officers.

[Tayler 395]

21 hours ago, Dillan said:

When the only time you can win, is when russians play you side, its almost certainly because off a skill gap. That's an easy issue to address.

A good example of that not being true is when C9 was a thing. When we helped win the wars it wasn't cause of a skill gap but a leadership problem (numbers too).
Considering I've been banned for a while and don't actually know for a fact what has been happening maybe what I'm saying isn't relevant but I know for a fact US has always had some shitty leaderships

[Tayler 395]

I think this post addresses things from a third person perspective but honestly until all the leaders give their own 2 cents on topics like this, you'll never be able to really identify the true problem. Everyone sees their own situation differently so you can't just assume it's one thing without their opinion.

Granted, sometimes what is perceived is actually what is happening but still. Army has always gotten the shit end of the stick and mainly because of the excessive minging they've always suffered from. Minging is a great thing when it's actually entertaining and not disruptive, but when you got dudes killing each other over and over and then they act tough or like douchebags it's hard to take them seriously. 

For SOC factions the main thing is just having an active leader and a consistant 3 to 4 active players daily. A good way to achieve that is having players from different time zones to be representing.

[Lelly 3]

I have been talking to alot of staff and officers. I have been personally trying to tone down how I handle situations and making sure people are understanding of why I do things. The situation vibe brought up happened over 2 weeks ago I believe , and nothing really has happened since. Last night after i saw the post i tried to talk to vibe and he ignored me. about 5 minutes later a bunch of people came in ts with vibe and he still refused to talk to me about the situation. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Lelly

[Anonymous 7]

1 hour ago, Lelly said:

I have been talking to alot of staff and officers. I have been personally trying to tone down how I handle situations and making sure people are understanding of why I do things. The situation vibe brought up happened over 2 weeks ago I believe , and nothing really has happened since. Last night after i saw the post i tried to talk to vibe and he ignored me. about 5 minutes later a bunch of people came in ts with vibe and he still refused to talk to me about the situation. 

From what I’m hearing. He doesn’t like you. 

[Chris Branch 61]

When i went on LOA Phat became the leader as COL and i advise him whenever he needs till i come back. Most of my army officer are working on many ideas for summer and if you don't see them participating in war they're doing either working on docs or speaking with enlisted/officer. My officer try not to skip war because it is a big part of their activities they have to complete at the end of the week. Later this week all of my officers will be evaluated to see if this is remotely true. 

[Tayler 395]

4 minutes ago, Chris Branch said:

Later this week all of my officers will be evaluated to see if this is remotely true. 

Telling people ahead of time that you're going to do something doesn't yield true results

*edit*
(You should be able to identify without needing to say it if the information stated here is true or not. You are the leader and it's kind of on you anyways to be keeping them in check as often as possible)

Edited April 22, 2019 by Tayler

[Guest Gildarts]

@Jackal

Edited April 29, 2019 by Gildarts

[Dowsy 36]

While my experiences with US Leaders have mostly been positive, one worry-some interaction with Vaughan and a CWO named Volatos happened during a DS tryout.

In said tryout, (from what I understood)  you may fail 2 questions and then your out. Pretty simple stuff right?

Well, no (also just so that the story makes sense, Volatos was hosting the tryout and Vaughan was no where to be seen before this incident).
See during the tryout another participant named Hank failed two questions and was then dismissed. After the dismissal though CPT Vaughan comes in and over-rides the decision made by Volatos, stating that "it was not a major fail in a question". This then caused some confusion with Volatos, Hank and Vaughan, resulting in Hank being let back into the tryout.

After this he continued to be a bit of a nuisance around the tryout, repeating what volatos was saying, making it extremely hard to hear what the question was, etc.

Now this just might be a single incident, but it is still worrying how little coordination was done between Volatos and Vaughan, especially during something semi-important as a tryout.

[Krimzin 535]

10 hours ago, Dowsy said:

While my experiences with US Leaders have mostly been positive, one worry-some interaction with Vaughan and a CWO named Volatos happened during a DS tryout.

In said tryout, (from what I understood)  you may fail 2 questions and then your out. Pretty simple stuff right?

Well, no (also just so that the story makes sense, Volatos was hosting the tryout and Vaughan was no where to be seen before this incident).
See during the tryout another participant named Hank failed two questions and was then dismissed. After the dismissal though CPT Vaughan comes in and over-rides the decision made by Volatos, stating that "it was not a major fail in a question". This then caused some confusion with Volatos, Hank and Vaughan, resulting in Hank being let back into the tryout.

After this he continued to be a bit of a nuisance around the tryout, repeating what volatos was saying, making it extremely hard to hear what the question was, etc.

Now this just might be a single incident, but it is still worrying how little coordination was done between Volatos and Vaughan, especially during something semi-important as a tryout.

So you're mad that someone with more authority and experience corrected someone's mistake? Get off his dick, dude.