Alternative/Loose Command Structure

[I_MIKE_I]

Hi!

I recently joined TEST, after reading what's to read about it and watching BoredGamer's Video (actually 3 times), now I just stumbled across this Thread: https://testsquadron.com/threads/discussion-divisions-of-test-brainstorm.3793/

And somehow it looks weird to me. Not saying it's a bad approach, just not one I would have expected from TEST or tbh one I can see working in SC in the long run.

Since I'm new here, I didn't want to post in that Thread as it would get kinda confusing...


First of all, I should explain why I think the idea of having Divisions won't work out:

Spoiler

1. Divisions = Drama, not fun.
example:
Transporter-Division will either want to farm their UEC for upgrading asap alone or with cover from Fighters.
Fighter-Division will usually want well, to fight.
And the Explorer-Division will want Fighters + Transporters to supply them.
Assuming all Divisions are equal, that's the perfect reciepe to cause some drama, not to mention the fact that Divisions divided by "who does what" would be rather huge and it's gonna be a huge PITA micro-managing the Players, so you don't end up having 10 Hull A with 500 Fighter Escorts and 500 Explorers getting their fuel from one Starfarer.

2. Divisions would essentially mean the same thing as joining a specialized Organisation and work with others... if you want to play something different, you'd either be acting outside of what your Division does, have to join multiple divisions or switch them (defeating the whole point) or only play something else when it fits your Division (i.E. you're a Transporter-Division guy wanting to play Fighter and other Transporters wanting a Escort).

3. It's too complicated. Now, I know SC isn't a game played by idiots, nor do I think TEST recruits (and keeps) them, but... most people here just want to play, not bother with military-like command structures or looking at who they have to listen to.

4. I think it would make a lot of people feel kinda insignificant to the cause. Basically, you have Division Leaders/Co-Leaders calling the shots and the rest has to follow which I think will drive away some players or just cause them to ignore the whole division thing.

Well it's easy to "I don't like this" and bring up some reasons, but not so easy to bring up an alternative, so it did take me quite some time thinking, also because I'm new and might not know a few things.

My focus on this suggestion was all about "as simple as possible and as fun as possible" while making it plausible to work as a form of command structure.

So, how does my System look like?:

Spoiler

We'd actually be using the normal Rank-Structure provided by RSI ( 0 glowing thingies = Affiliate etc. 5 glowing thingies = Glorious Leader Montoya), the difference would be in how it's applied. Leaving aside 0 and 5 g.t., I think ranks should mostly represent how active the players have been for the Organisation, more than anything else and it's more to show this off than having command authority.

Affiliates aside, everyone would have the choice of "leading" a small group of max. 5-10 or so, which have the same interests (in terms of what role they see themselfes playing) or joining such a group. However, the Leader would mostly be a Tutor rather than a actual Leader. I also think it would be a good way to eventually make people work together towards new Ships and it would encourage people to actively recruit new players. Of course, you can also ignore the Groups and do your own thing, I don't think Test should be the sort of org which forces a command structure on everyone.

The main advantages I see with this would be:

1. If someone isn't too fond of their "leader", they could just leave and join a different group, rather than getting stuck below a command they can't stand.

2. Like 90% of the time, people will be doing small taks/quests in small groups, events like "org xyz wants to wage war with us, let's get rid of them" or "let's capture some vanduul capital ships" will be rare and usually would require extensive planning before.

3. I think it give people the feeling like they actually matter, rather than being just nameless minions below a high-command. So we'd actually provide the benefits of a large and a small organisation without the drawbacks.

4. People would by default be a lot more interested in recruting new players, since they'd recruit for their own group at the same time.

5. New Players would have someone to answer their questions etc. or just to help them make progress.

6. We could possibly recruit entire small organisations like this, as the former Leader could just become leader of his own group inside TEST with his former underlings.

Please tell me what you think, eventually I might have to rethink a few details, as I really just wrote it as it came to my mind. :P

 

[CosmicTrader]

I_MIKE_I
I approve of this idea.
In fact, my thinking and plans for game plan are basically the same.

Your ideas are laid out quite well.
I will fly with you any time.

Welcome aboard.

 

[ratfeast]

Hi!

I recently joined TEST, after reading what's to read about it and watching BoredGamer's Video (actually 3 times), now I just stumbled across this Thread: https://testsquadron.com/threads/discussion-divisions-of-test-brainstorm.3793/

And somehow it looks weird to me. Not saying it's a bad approach, just not one I would have expected from TEST or tbh one I can see working in SC in the long run.

Since I'm new here, I didn't want to post in that Thread as it would get kinda confusing...


First of all, I should explain why I think the idea of having Divisions won't work out:

Spoiler

1. Divisions = Drama, not fun.
example:
Transporter-Division will either want to farm their UEC for upgrading asap alone or with cover from Fighters.
Fighter-Division will usually want well, to fight.
And the Explorer-Division will want Fighters + Transporters to supply them.
Assuming all Divisions are equal, that's the perfect reciepe to cause some drama, not to mention the fact that Divisions divided by "who does what" would be rather huge and it's gonna be a huge PITA micro-managing the Players, so you don't end up having 10 Hull A with 500 Fighter Escorts and 500 Explorers getting their fuel from one Starfarer.

2. Divisions would essentially mean the same thing as joining a specialized Organisation and work with others... if you want to play something different, you'd either be acting outside of what your Division does, have to join multiple divisions or switch them (defeating the whole point) or only play something else when it fits your Division (i.E. you're a Transporter-Division guy wanting to play Fighter and other Transporters wanting a Escort).

3. It's too complicated. Now, I know SC isn't a game played by idiots, nor do I think TEST recruits (and keeps) them, but... most people here just want to play, not bother with military-like command structures or looking at who they have to listen to.

4. I think it would make a lot of people feel kinda insignificant to the cause. Basically, you have Division Leaders/Co-Leaders calling the shots and the rest has to follow which I think will drive away some players or just cause them to ignore the whole division thing.

Well it's easy to "I don't like this" and bring up some reasons, but not so easy to bring up an alternative, so it did take me quite some time thinking, also because I'm new and might not know a few things.

My focus on this suggestion was all about "as simple as possible and as fun as possible" while making it plausible to work as a form of command structure.

So, how does my System look like?:

Spoiler

We'd actually be using the normal Rank-Structure provided by RSI ( 0 glowing thingies = Affiliate etc. 5 glowing thingies = Glorious Leader Montoya), the difference would be in how it's applied. Leaving aside 0 and 5 g.t., I think ranks should mostly represent how active the players have been for the Organisation, more than anything else and it's more to show this off than having command authority.

Affiliates aside, everyone would have the choice of "leading" a small group of max. 5-10 or so, which have the same interests (in terms of what role they see themselfes playing) or joining such a group. However, the Leader would mostly be a Tutor rather than a actual Leader. I also think it would be a good way to eventually make people work together towards new Ships and it would encourage people to actively recruit new players. Of course, you can also ignore the Groups and do your own thing, I don't think Test should be the sort of org which forces a command structure on everyone.

The main advantages I see with this would be:

1. If someone isn't too fond of their "leader", they could just leave and join a different group, rather than getting stuck below a command they can't stand.

2. Like 90% of the time, people will be doing small taks/quests in small groups, events like "org xyz wants to wage war with us, let's get rid of them" or "let's capture some vanduul capital ships" will be rare and usually would require extensive planning before.

3. I think it give people the feeling like they actually matter, rather than being just nameless minions below a high-command. So we'd actually provide the benefits of a large and a small organisation without the drawbacks.

4. People would by default be a lot more interested in recruting new players, since they'd recruit for their own group at the same time.

5. New Players would have someone to answer their questions etc. or just to help them make progress.

6. We could possibly recruit entire small organisations like this, as the former Leader could just become leader of his own group inside TEST with his former underlings.

Please tell me what you think, eventually I might have to rethink a few details, as I really just wrote it as it came to my mind. :p

I thought we could do a team based approach. Put together teams that could "be gunners" for anyone needing them at a particular time and on call for emergencies. A lot of the captains of a ship will have to do if they own a particular ship and doing particular mission or function. In other words, if I spend $1000 to buy a Destroyer, that usually means I want to captain that ship. If someone is totally incompetent, I think that is up to leadership to address, gently. For example, "ratfeast, you sure seem to hit a lot of asteroids with that Destroyer, perhaps you could let Montoya drive and you could tell him where to go".

We are going to need specialists of all types for captains too. I,for example , own a Prospector, a Endeavor-Olympic Class, Retaliator Bomber and a Redeemer. All of which will require large crews. I won't have time to hunt up a crew each time , so we may want to organize by function to a degree. So I can post a desire for a 5 man gunnery crew to do X mission, for example. For some of the larger ships, we may want a consistent crew, for the sake of trust and consistency. For example, we are going on a large raid, we would want particular crews associated with the TSS Enterprise, a Carrier with a large crew. Otherwise, quickly organizing a raid, or more importantly a rescue or a defence would be impossible.

We could also have superspecialists, say, people who are good at navigating worm holes with a capital ship, something I myself may not feel confident doing. Clearly, we will need those that are willing to crew and those that are willing to captain. I, myself, would be willing to do both, and I imagine a number of others would too. I agree with a loose command structure, after all, that's why we joined TEST. Maybe we can make everyone happy!

 

[Snakey]

Disagreeing with NKato... Bold move, your overqualified!

 

[I_MIKE_I]

I thought we could do a team based approach. Put together teams that could "be gunners" for anyone needing them at a particular time and on call for emergencies. A lot of the captains of a ship will have to do if they own a particular ship and doing particular mission or function. In other words, if I spend $1000 to buy a Destroyer, that usually means I want to captain that ship. If someone is totally incompetent, I think that is up to leadership to address, gently. For example, "ratfeast, you sure seem to hit a lot of asteroids with that Destroyer, perhaps you could let Montoya drive and you could tell him where to go".

We are going to need specialists of all types for captains too. I,for example , own a Prospector, a Endeavor-Olympic Class, Retaliator Bomber and a Redeemer. All of which will require large crews. I won't have time to hunt up a crew each time , so we may want to organize by function to a degree. So I can post a desire for a 5 man gunnery crew to do X mission, for example. For some of the larger ships, we may want a consistent crew, for the sake of trust and consistency. For example, we are going on a large raid, we would want particular crews associated with the TSS Enterprise, a Carrier with a large crew. Otherwise, quickly organizing a raid, or more importantly a rescue or a defence would be impossible.

We could also have superspecialists, say, people who are good at navigating worm holes with a capital ship, something I myself may not feel confident doing. Clearly, we will need those that are willing to crew and those that are willing to captain. I, myself, would be willing to do both, and I imagine a number of others would too. I agree with a loose command structure, after all, that's why we joined TEST. Maybe we can make everyone happy!

Well, my Idea is quite a Team-Based approach, just that Teams aren't divided into "Guys that only do X" "Guys that only do Y" and so on, but instead small groups of people which benefit from playing with each other - this does not exclude Groups of pure Transports, Marines etc. and since we're still one Org, the Groups would work together if the need actually is there.

For a Example, we pick up the guy with the Javelin you mentioned (tough afaik the thing costs way more than 1000$), he can make his own group and look for people which love to man turrets and I doubt he'd have to wait long to get plenty of people wanting to join. If he sucks at piloting it, it's nobody's right to tell him to stop it... at worst we'd just sit back and enjoy the explosions. I mean... none of us is a professional Spaceship Pilot, nor is anyone paid for "working" the Game, so hell... let people do whatever they want and eventually they'll get good at it.

As for your "post a desire for a 5 man gunnery crew for a mission"... hands down, if you write "can 5 ppl pls man my turrets for a mission" in guild chat, that would be resolved in seconds just because of sheer numbers.

Regarding persistant crews for Ships, I think the System I suggested covers that kinda well to some degree, since the groups would be persistent.. but having a persistant Ship (at some point those things will remain in the 'verse even if you log out) crewed 24/7 is quite ambitious for a non-hardcore Org.

As far as specialists/super-specialists are concerned, I guess they could still have their place if they want to be such, but overall I think having people do just one thing (basically something nobody else can/wants) is kinda boring over time.

Disagreeing with NKato... Bold move, your overqualified!

Well, I don't really say his Idea is bad, it's just something that doesn't fit with how TEST has been described... and just writing that would have been sorta lame I think.

 

[Aubrey Dail]

There needs to be a structure of sorts, based on the careers that are already in place in the Verse. Like begets like: so to say. It would be hard to have a bounty hunter chasing a pirate around the ship with a hefty bounty. We may be able to cross-train, yet we should stick to one career at a time with an option to change careers.

 

[I_MIKE_I]

There needs to be a structure of sorts, based on the careers that are already in place in the Verse. Like begets like: so to say. It would be hard to have a bounty hunter chasing a pirate around the ship with a hefty bounty. We may be able to cross-train, yet we should stick to one career at a time with an option to change careers.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a structure... most of this post is actually about a form of structure, just a less strict one.

I can't imagine it being fun to do the same thing over and over again and having to beg to do something different at some point.

btw. the "former military" dramaqueens from Atlas, which believe it's "fun" to train their members "to a higher level than other orgs" (lol...) also use a Division system, which looks 90% like what was suggested for us... they just took care of making it even more specialized and less fun.
http://atlasdefenseindustries.com

 

[BUTUZ]

There's Montoya.....

...... and then there's the other 9000 members.

That's test squardon!

 

[ratfeast]

There needs to be a structure of sorts, based on the careers that are already in place in the Verse. Like begets like: so to say. It would be hard to have a bounty hunter chasing a pirate around the ship with a hefty bounty. We may be able to cross-train, yet we should stick to one career at a time with an option to change careers.

I am quite capable of mining one day, and raiding the next, I think we need that flexibility. Although we may gain a reputation for doing something well in particular.

Anthem for TEST

 

[ratfeast]

There needs to be a structure of sorts, based on the careers that are already in place in the Verse. Like begets like: so to say. It would be hard to have a bounty hunter chasing a pirate around the ship with a hefty bounty. We may be able to cross-train, yet we should stick to one career at a time with an option to change careers.

Sorry, I disagree! We should keep all options open. I think the more flexible we each are, the better we'll do.

 

[I_MIKE_I]

There's Montoya.....

...... and then there's the other 9000 members.

That's test squardon!

Yeah but I think it would be cool if he wouldn't have to manage all 4000+ Main members by himself to prevent us from doing more stupid-than-usual stuff... or getting bored...

I am quite capable of mining one day, and raiding the next, I think we need that flexibility. Although we may gain a reputation for doing something well in particular.

Anthem for TEST

Well, we're just short behind XPLOR in Main-Members (300-ish) so whatever our Reputation might be, it can't be that bad.

As for the Anthem:

I also had another Idea for a Anthem, but I'd need a Korean singer to replace "Kim Jong-Il" and "Motherland" with "Montoya" and "Organisation".

 

[ratfeast]

Well, my Idea is quite a Team-Based approach, just that Teams aren't divided into "Guys that only do X" "Guys that only do Y" and so on, but instead small groups of people which benefit from playing with each other - this does not exclude Groups of pure Transports, Marines etc. and since we're still one Org, the Groups would work together if the need actually is there.

For a Example, we pick up the guy with the Javelin you mentioned (tough afaik the thing costs way more than 1000$), he can make his own group and look for people which love to man turrets and I doubt he'd have to wait long to get plenty of people wanting to join. If he sucks at piloting it, it's nobody's right to tell him to stop it... at worst we'd just sit back and enjoy the explosions. I mean... none of us is a professional Spaceship Pilot, nor is anyone paid for "working" the Game, so hell... let people do whatever they want and eventually they'll get good at it.

As for your "post a desire for a 5 man gunnery crew for a mission"... hands down, if you write "can 5 ppl pls man my turrets for a mission" in guild chat, that would be resolved in seconds just because of sheer numbers.

Regarding persistant crews for Ships, I think the System I suggested covers that kinda well to some degree, since the groups would be persistent.. but having a persistant Ship (at some point those things will remain in the 'verse even if you log out) crewed 24/7 is quite ambitious for a non-hardcore Org.

As far as specialists/super-specialists are concerned, I guess they could still have their place if they want to be such, but overall I think having people do just one thing (basically something nobody else can/wants) is kinda boring over time.


Well, I don't really say his Idea is bad, it's just something that doesn't fit with how TEST has been described... and just writing that would have been sorta lame I think.

I think all these ideas are predicated on a persistent universe.

I think it's anyone's right to say anything, including "You suck at piloting", just as it's anyone's right to blow them off.

If we are going on a large raid, I think, finding a 5 man team may be more difficult than you imagine if it's spontaneously crewed only.

I was not suggesting anyone be ready 24/7, but i am generally on at certain times of the day, and with a worldwide membership like we have, getting "coverage" shouldn't be a problem.

I also wasn't suggesting that anyone be locked into a role, if a person is willing to manoeuvre my Idriss through hyperspace, and they enjoy doing so, I would like to know those people if I don't feel comfortable doing that.

I think we're on the same page, I'd mostly like knowing at a particular time what resources are available. And, giving people the greatest individual choice on what they want to do, but we will need some organisation. Like what happens when a group of pirates is trying to take your ship from you , I'd like to know that the guild has my back. And I am willing to give some time and resources toward assuring that.

 

[ratfeast]

Yeah but I think it would be cool if he wouldn't have to manage all 4000+ Main members by himself to prevent us from doing more stupid-than-usual stuff... or getting bored...



Well, we're just short behind XPLOR in Main-Members (300-ish) so whatever our Reputation might be, it can't be that bad.

As for the Anthem:

I also had another Idea for a Anthem, but I'd need a Korean singer to replace "Kim Jong-Il" and "Motherland" with "Montoya" and "Organisation".

I like your choice, they even have the right colors!

 

[I_MIKE_I]

I think all these ideas are predicated on a persistent universe.

I think it's anyone's right to say anything, including "You suck at piloting", just as it's anyone's right to blow them off.

If we are going on a large raid, I think, finding a 5 man team may be more difficult than you imagine if it's spontaneously crewed only.

I was not suggesting anyone be ready 24/7, but i am generally on at certain times of the day, and with a worldwide membership like we have, getting "coverage" shouldn't be a problem.

I also wasn't suggesting that anyone be locked into a role, if a person is willing to manoeuvre my Idriss through hyperspace, and they enjoy doing so, I would like to know those people if I don't feel comfortable doing that.

I think we're on the same page, I'd mostly like knowing at a particular time what resources are available. And, giving people the greatest individual choice on what they want to do, but we will need some organisation.

Getting 5 people for a few hours should really not be an issue I think... possibly you might ask a few minutes in advance since the people could be at the other end of the Galaxy.

Well, it's not like I doubt we'd run out of active people etc. to man capital ships, I just dunno how fun those giantic things will actually be or rather how frequent they'd actually be used. I mean you don't man a Javelin to hunt NPC Pirates in a High security system and if you actually go into dangerous areas, you'd want some fighters etc. to take out things like Retaliators.

Well... I think your best bet on that particular problem of maneuvering your Idris would be to get better at it yourself. It's not like there's anyone with experience on handling it... in fact, we currently have the most experience in blowing up Auroras.

 

[Adiran]

I disagree.

Everything you talk about as a replacement for what you are considering a "Rigid command structure" is what will dynamically happen in every organization large or small. Clicks will form and small groups of friends who want to do whatever they want despite what "the man" wants them to. This is inevitable. We are playing a game and not joining a military organization. That much is true. But what you fail to realize is having that few people in the "high ranks" "giving orders" and everyone else following them is the only way we as a organization will do any more than "exist" within the SC universe as a gab bag and hotch potch of random people who just happen to want to fall under one banner.

Some may only want to mine. that is where groups like Rock Raiders will come in. Some may only want to Explore... DSET is there for them. Some may want to make a group of 5 friends and do what they want when they want. Well when they want to mine Rock Raiders will be there to help them or even group with them to make their small endeavor much more lucrative. DSET or the pvp focused groups will do the same. They will have ops where the group of 5 can join in when and how they want. This is not a dictatorship of sorts where when you join a fleet for any kind of operation we will tell you you can only bring or fly x ship with y guns or you cannot join us. We will suggest things to bring to better fit with the doctrine or strategy we are using and if you choose not to follow it then so be it. That is your choice.

I highly doubt anyone who is in Test joined because they wanted to be part of a small 5 man group. They joined because Test (is the best) is a large group of players and they will have and provide more ways and opportunities to play than a group of 5 can provide.

The best I can do to counter your argument is another video game. There are many real life examples but for the sake of preventing anyone being offended or stirring bad blood between everyone I will not use them. Altho with EVE online we all know bad blood happens...

If you look at the history of EVE online or if you have played it as religiously as I have in the past you will note that EVERY SINGLE major organization that has held any real power in the EVE universe has a very rigid and often unseen command structure. when you join these organizations you quickly find that they have divisions within them. Lead by leadership of very few individuals. That each division is tasked with specific jobs in the organization requiring each division to work in tandem with the other divisions to organize things for their organization to do. As this new member you quickly find that there are many different scheduled events allowing you a range of opportunities to play how, where, and when you want. You quickly find there are clicks of members 5 to 10 deep, that regularly play with each other doing things they want to do. You find there is that one person among them who isn't really considered a leader but he leads them all the same. there are many of these groups in each time zone and you find that they tend to band together to accomplish things in larger scales than they could accomplish alone. Everyone joined this organization because they knew that with their small group of friends they could band together under one community goal to accomplish great things they otherwise would never have been able to do. This is accomplished because of the high end command structure providing content for the group to perform. I believe Test Squadron is working toward this ideal and allowing anyone, skilled and talented or drunk and bored the same opportunity to achieve their goals in this game.

If we do not follow a principal like this one I have laid out Test will not be the best. They will be scattered and leaderless with too many chiefs telling to few braves what to do and as such stands no chance and achieving anything compared to more organized groups that stand against us.

You state having divisions creates division in players base. This in fact will give each player a sense of purpose in the organization. Each division working together is what makes the whole. Joining a division is not required and joining one does not lock you into only one play style or set of ships you are allowed to fly. It is far from complicated if you know how the system works. Even if you don't and you just want to go pvp somewhere all the complicated bits are taken care of by someone willing to do it allowing you to log in and see a pvp fleet then join in and not have to do any more than play the game doing what you want and having fun doing it. No complicated bits to worry about. If being one of the masses makes you feel insignificant then listen carefully to what i'm about to say. This is directed at anyone who may feel this way not any particular person.

Montoya is nothing without each and every one of us. Test Squadron is nothing without every single member in it. Test would not exist without the lowest member on the totem pole logging in every day and participating. The chain of command is only as strong as every other link in the chain. THAT IS YOU!! YOU MAKE TEST SQUADRON BEST SQUADRON!!! Not Montoya. Not me. YOU!! I know for a fact Montoya feels the same way.

Only you can make Test Squadron great. How will you contribute? Simply logging in every day and participating in the forums is all you need to do. When the game is launched logging in and playing the game the way you want to within the organization. PVP, PVE, mining, exploration, whatever it is you want to do, we will never achieve unless we achieve it together.

 

[CrudeSasquatch]

Um.
/looks around /knocks beer cans off table /finds change, pulls out 2 cents

Decentralized!
I don't like rigid command structures!
Which is why TEST is BEST. They have a structure and pretend they don't. Glorious Montoya knows what's up. First he dangles the beer then he applies the iron shackles!

.Also, lots of us have been playing games together already and I have a fairly good idea of who will be the people I crew for/with... The people that don't scream when we lose, for example, are better to play with than the super whiney, order barkers, rage quitters, etc. Sure they'll make an elite strike force clique, and I will drunkenly cheer them on. But I'm positive they'll avoid having me fly the Idris. (I constantlyfly toward the brightest objects)

I can honestly say I'm not the best, nor do I strive to dodge asteroids... but my imagination is like this:

CrudeSasquatch logs on. He's drinking a beer and reading TESTies TIMES. @CosmicTrader has an event titled "City Boppin in Vega at 9pm Greenwich".
@NKato has an event titled "Operation Invasion 7pm MST"
@Montoya has an event called "Bathe in my omnisciences!" at 4pm EST

I go post @CrudeSasquatch available and ready for crewing. I get 47 pings asking if I want to crew various ships. I choose the guy that has really good insurance

 

[thanatos73]

I second @Adiran s entire post....

 

[DrunkenTeddy]

I don't like rigid command structures!
Which is why TEST is BEST. They have a structure and pretend they don't. Glorious Montoya knows what's up.

I have to agree with you my drunken compadre. My plan is really to keep an eye out for interesting planned events, but most days I'll probably just jump into discord and ask what people are doing. Then help out however I can. I dont think we have to make it that complicated. Drunk TEST Best TEST.

 

[Devastat3]

Am good with someone taking up the time of setting up an expedition of some sort or a mining project or whatever and try to keep order to the whole mess. And also of course making sure the booty is split evenly and fairly:cool: but the minute someone tells me to pick up a broom, red solo cups will be flying!

 

[Blind Owl]

I disagree.

Everything you talk about as a replacement for what you are considering a "Rigid command structure" is what will dynamically happen in every organization large or small. Clicks will form and small groups of friends who want to do whatever they want despite what "the man" wants them to. This is inevitable. We are playing a game and not joining a military organization. That much is true. But what you fail to realize is having that few people in the "high ranks" "giving orders" and everyone else following them is the only way we as a organization will do any more than "exist" within the SC universe as a gab bag and hotch potch of random people who just happen to want to fall under one banner.

Some may only want to mine. that is where groups like Rock Raiders will come in. Some may only want to Explore... DSET is there for them. Some may want to make a group of 5 friends and do what they want when they want. Well when they want to mine Rock Raiders will be there to help them or even group with them to make their small endeavor much more lucrative. DSET or the pvp focused groups will do the same. They will have ops where the group of 5 can join in when and how they want. This is not a dictatorship of sorts where when you join a fleet for any kind of operation we will tell you you can only bring or fly x ship with y guns or you cannot join us. We will suggest things to bring to better fit with the doctrine or strategy we are using and if you choose not to follow it then so be it. That is your choice.

I highly doubt anyone who is in Test joined because they wanted to be part of a small 5 man group. They joined because Test (is the best) is a large group of players and they will have and provide more ways and opportunities to play than a group of 5 can provide.

The best I can do to counter your argument is another video game. There are many real life examples but for the sake of preventing anyone being offended or stirring bad blood between everyone I will not use them. Altho with EVE online we all know bad blood happens...

If you look at the history of EVE online or if you have played it as religiously as I have in the past you will note that EVERY SINGLE major organization that has held any real power in the EVE universe has a very rigid and often unseen command structure. when you join these organizations you quickly find that they have divisions within them. Lead by leadership of very few individuals. That each division is tasked with specific jobs in the organization requiring each division to work in tandem with the other divisions to organize things for their organization to do. As this new member you quickly find that there are many different scheduled events allowing you a range of opportunities to play how, where, and when you want. You quickly find there are clicks of members 5 to 10 deep, that regularly play with each other doing things they want to do. You find there is that one person among them who isn't really considered a leader but he leads them all the same. there are many of these groups in each time zone and you find that they tend to band together to accomplish things in larger scales than they could accomplish alone. Everyone joined this organization because they knew that with their small group of friends they could band together under one community goal to accomplish great things they otherwise would never have been able to do. This is accomplished because of the high end command structure providing content for the group to perform. I believe Test Squadron is working toward this ideal and allowing anyone, skilled and talented or drunk and bored the same opportunity to achieve their goals in this game.

If we do not follow a principal like this one I have laid out Test will not be the best. They will be scattered and leaderless with too many chiefs telling to few braves what to do and as such stands no chance and achieving anything compared to more organized groups that stand against us.

You state having divisions creates division in players base. This in fact will give each player a sense of purpose in the organization. Each division working together is what makes the whole. Joining a division is not required and joining one does not lock you into only one play style or set of ships you are allowed to fly. It is far from complicated if you know how the system works. Even if you don't and you just want to go pvp somewhere all the complicated bits are taken care of by someone willing to do it allowing you to log in and see a pvp fleet then join in and not have to do any more than play the game doing what you want and having fun doing it. No complicated bits to worry about. If being one of the masses makes you feel insignificant then listen carefully to what i'm about to say. This is directed at anyone who may feel this way not any particular person.

Montoya is nothing without each and every one of us. Test Squadron is nothing without every single member in it. Test would not exist without the lowest member on the totem pole logging in every day and participating. The chain of command is only as strong as every other link in the chain. THAT IS YOU!! YOU MAKE TEST SQUADRON BEST SQUADRON!!! Not Montoya. Not me. YOU!! I know for a fact Montoya feels the same way.

Only you can make Test Squadron great. How will you contribute? Simply logging in every day and participating in the forums is all you need to do. When the game is launched logging in and playing the game the way you want to within the organization. PVP, PVE, mining, exploration, whatever it is you want to do, we will never achieve unless we achieve it together.

This is spot on. There's needs to be someone making plans, someone organizing Ops and stuff and things. There's doesn't need to be rigid structure in place that is unmovable, but there does need to be a structure of some sort. Even complete anarchy has a ring leader, someone yelling "burn the institution!".

I've personally expressed interest in many of the divisions in TEST. And depending on what I want to do any given day, or more importantly, what's happening on any given day, will define what I do.

And what's happening won't happen without someone planning it.
@mromutt calling together a bunch of the DSET ladies and gents to hit the far reaches of space.
@Black Sunder planning to strip mine and entire asteroid field with the Rock Raiders
Etc etc etc.

I'd love to set up a division of my own, but RL keeps me from putting that kind of time into this. So I'm grateful that there are those with the vision who are willing to dedicate the time needed to make it happen. I can hop on discord, read the forums, and know that I can join X Y or Z op, and can play with a bunch of like minded folks, and make the most of the time that I'm able to devote to the game.

I understand what your saying @I_MIKE_I, but I think you'll find that the divisions and structure working TEST are neither restrictive nor rigid.

For an example, read through the Op for Rock Raiders under professions, and you'll see something that is well laid out, with plenty of vision, and not at all restrictive.

Cheers. And a well laid out thought process, FYI. Kudos to you for that, even if I'm not in total agreement.

I second @Adiran s entire post....

I third it. ;)