Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hierarchical Role-Awareness

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hierarchical Role-Awareness

    I would like to talk about what I call “hierarchical role-awareness”. What do I mean by this term? Okay, there is the general role awareness. In case of battlefiedlish FPS people may think of how the different classes have to act to fulfill their respective role as good as possible or how to interact with other classes. Or they might think of tactical role awareness. These are topics on their own. What I have in mind when I say “hierarchical role-awareness” is the role in the hierachical structure of a team. And that is what I want to talk about here. This structure splits up into several layers of information distribution and a final “working-layer”.


    To get more concrete:

    In PS2 we have mostly 2 layers of distribution: PLs and SLs. In some cases we may have up to 5:

    1. cOLS + OLSs
    2. PLs
    3. SLs
    4. FTLs
    5. non-leading players

    To describe it very roughly the top layer generates orders and distributes them to the next lower one. The following 3 layers then simply keep distributing until the orders reach the bottom layer and get executed. But this is only a very rough description. What happens in more detail is this:

    Tier 5a: cOLS:
    generates orders/
    accepts or declines requests from individual OLSs/
    distributes requests to individual OLSs/
    receives reports from individual OLSs

    Tier 5b: OLSs:
    generates orders/
    distributes orders to lower tier from cOLS/
    generates requests/
    accepts or declines requests from lower tier and cOLS/
    passes requests from lower tier to cOLS/
    poses requests to cOLS/
    generates reports/
    receives reports from lower tier and cOLS/
    passes reports to lower tier and cOLS

    Tier 4: PLs:
    generates orders/
    receives orders from higher tier/
    distributes orders to lower tier from higher and same tier/
    generates requests/
    accepts or declines requests from lower and same tier/
    passes requests from lower tier to same and higher tier/
    poses requests to same and higher tier/
    generates reports/
    receives reports from lower, same and higher tier/
    passes reports to lower, same and higher tier

    Tier 3: SLs:
    generates orders/
    receives orders from higher tier/
    distributes orders to lower tier from higher and same tier/
    generates requests/
    accepts or declines requests from lower and same tier/
    passes requests from lower tier to same and higher tier/
    poses requests to same and higher tier/
    generates reports/
    receives reports from lower, same and higher tier/
    passes reports to lower, same and higher tier

    Tier 2: FTLs:
    generates orders/
    distributes orders to lower tier from higher and same tier/
    generates requests/
    accepts or declines requests from lower and same tier/
    passes requests from lower tier to same and higher tier/
    poses requests to same and higher tier/
    generates reports/
    receives reports from lower, same and higher tier/
    passes reports to lower, same and higher tier

    Tier 1: Execution-Layer:
    accepts orders/
    generates requests/
    accepts or declines requests from same tier/
    poses requests to same, higher and after next higher tier/
    generates reports/
    receives reports from same, higher and after next higher tier/
    passes reports to same, higher and after next higher tier


    The abbreviations are the ones I chose for the charts I posted in the thread 'Coordination of Communication' (see this subforum).


    Consult these diagrams:
    http://i.imgur.com/b91XP6D.png
    http://i.imgur.com/BR4aBmV.png


    Fine, now we have covered the distribution of information within a hierarchically structured complex. But this is only the structure. What about the actual content? How should a PL act informationwise? What type of information may an SL generate and distribute and what not? Etc.

    Here is what I think:

    I would like to first give you an example:

    Example 1.0:

    The SL is there to transform rough orders that he receives into more detailed ones, which he passes on to his FTLs. The FTLs then tell the players in their FT what orders their FT received and micromanages his FT.

    Example 1.1:

    intra cOLS: “We need to take over the northeastern territories to cut the TR off and make them bleed out this way. Outfit X, take Mao tech plant and NS refinery.”

    OLS of outfit X to it's Pls: “All right, listen, we (the cOLS) have decided to take over the northeastern territories to cut the TR. Alpha platoon and Bravo platoon, I want you to take over Mao tech plant. Charlie you take care of NS refinery.”

    inter outfit X PLs: “Yea, let's do it like this: Taking over NS refinery shouldn't be too much of a problem. When you are ready Charlie, you go into stand by. We will see if you need your help then or not. We (Alpha) will do a Gal-drop and then take care of the generators. Bravo, you guys do a Gal-drop too and pour in from the big landing pad into the main building, all right? Let's say dust off from WG in 5 mins, agreed?”

    Alpha PL to Alpha SLs: “Okay guys, this is the plan: We redeploy at WG and do a Gal-drop on Mao tech. Alpha squad, I want you guys to blow up the outlying generators, after that rush for the SCU. Bravo and Charlie, your task is to get the north west outpost under your control.”

    Alpha SL to Alpha Squad: “Listen up lads, we do a gal drop on Mao tech plant. We will take care of the outlying generators. Alpha Fireteam, I want you to secure the northern gen, Bravo you take the southern gen, Charlie, you guys take some high ground and cover the area around the generators. As soon as Bravo platoon has blown up the SCU shield gen, Alpha and Bravo Fireteam rush to the SCU and light it up! Number 2, get a Gal. Everybody redeploy at WG and get in the Gal when ready, we got 3 mins until departure!”

    Alpha FTL to Alpha FT: “Listen, I want you stay close to each other. I don't want to see you rush for the gen to overcharge it and die in the process because you were incautious.. Number 3, you will do the overcharging, we will provide cover. As soon as the gen blows number 3 and 4 rush to the SCU. Me and 2 will stay at the gen and make sure it does not get repaired.”


    All right, what can be derived form that example? There is an initial order that is pretty vague. From tier to tier it get's more complex. Every layer adds some more complexity to it until the executing layer is reached. So to speak, every layer below the layer above does the micromanaging for that layer. Now, in this example, there certainly was only abstract tactical micromanagement. But there also is micromanagement that deals with coordinating the players in the space, the actual “3D-battlefield” (I lack the right words somehow). Just see the next example to understand, what I mean:

    Example 2:

    FTL to FT: “Number 2, please cover the northern door, number 3, get on the roof and do overwatch, 4 get over there (*shoots ground to point at location* (for example)) and watch the window next to me, I will watch the door next to that very spot.”

    So there is that kind of micromanagement that is depicted in the above example too. I will call it “spacial micromanagement”. In this example I chose a FTL talks to his FT. In my opinion, the FT should be the only group that does real spacial micromanagement.

    This concludes my little writeup on hierarchical role-awareness. There are mainly two kinds of micromanagement: tactical (arguably strategic at the top most layers) micromanagement and spacial micromanagement. The tactical micromanagement happens across all distributing layers of the command hierarchy, but mutates to a certain degree between every two neighboring tiers, gets ever more detailed. But only from the last distributing tier to the bottom most tier happens spacial micromanagement (in addition to tactical micromanagement). The role-awareness in this whole thing is that every tier in the hierarchy needs to know, what kind of micromanagement it may do and what not and also to what extend. (This also stresses the importance of Fireteams, in my opinion.)


    Thank you for reading.
    Last edited by Evilhardt; 02-10-2013, 09:07 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

    When it comes to squad level concerns, I do not hesitate to 'micromanage' -- a term that is generally misused by those that are unfamiliar with or hostile to disciplined teamwork (and here I do not refer to the above post).

    As PL I merely set general objectives and ensure cohesive movement to new engagements. This frees up cognitive resources for continually monitoring the big picture and processing incoming intel.

    As SL I will often want a very specific configuration of overwatches, thus I'll assign individuals to a sector or spot, order eyes to be in a very certain direction and so on.

    Overthe years I have discovered that quite a few TGers despised such coordinated teamwork because they wanted the freedom to run 'n gun as lone wolves under the cover of 'teamwork'. I also found quite a few TGers who longed for such cohesion and disciplined teamwork.

    You can do just about anything with your men, but they have to buy into the concept, and the more complex the concept (methodology), the more training becomes necessary.

    Good write up -- thanks!
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

      Great post, interesting analysis.

      Consider embedding those images perhaps using ([img]url.png[/img])


      It's useful to be conscious of the different roles. I find it such a joy when I'm just a grunt that I don't have to deal with certain things like keeping track of where the enemy is on the big map. THe different roles offer great diversion in gameplay, working greatly to the longevity of this title.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

        Have to agree with Emale here, SLs should micromanage. Specifically in the absence of a FT system.

        There is a point to which you have to sort out the politics behind doing it and what is an acceptable level of 'execution'. I wont tell who specifically to do what but I will determine my squad's general kit layout (pointing out what I want and what deficiencies I see), I will say whether we need a Sunderer or not and where, specifically, it should deploy, I will also say if we are 'patrolling' in a spread manner or if we are simply holding in a tight defense.

        The key comes at how you enforce it. I'm a nice guy, I generally let things slide and just hope they learn the next few times.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

          I agree partly. In absence of a FT-system certainly the SL needs to do the micromanagement. The problem is, as a consequence there will be less micromanagement in total than if there was a FT-system. Without doubt the transition between spacial management and low level (the bottom most tiers) tactical management comes in a fluid transition. I argue that having a FT-system is always superior to having none, if you should have good FTLs at hand. When a squad is split up specially the SL can't do many specific spacial micromanagement things where he is not present anyway. Detailed FT specific micromanagement should be avoided to be done by the SL to ensure low comm traffic though. Non-FT-specific spacial micromanagement on the other hand has to be done by the SL.
          If you have the possibility so set up FT I would always want to do so. FTL can think with and for the SL. This way the SL doesn't need to think of all the little micromanagement things alone. The FTLs can assist there and even take the initiative on certain things to take some strain form the SL (“free up cognitive resources“ to use E-male's words) , so he can focus better on the bigger picture. As all FTLs coordinate with each other they know what the other FTs are doing.

          @ BigGaayAl: I can't edit the startpost anymore, unfortunately.
          Last edited by Evilhardt; 02-11-2013, 06:29 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

            FireTeam ops can only realistically be done through OutFit only squads. Beyond that it would need to be even special persons to want to go to the extra layer of organization and tactical cooperation. I personally really want to do the FT Ops but as the game truly operates on the Platoon Level it is hard to manage a FT Op while still being relevant.

            The only way I could see FT Ops being accomplished is through a well planned event before hand or IHS grouping.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

              Right, you can only do that was TG members, but I don't see a problem there. You simply add squad specific fireteam channels so the teamspeak and everybody who is TG member joins the fireteam channel according to his number (Alpha 1 - 12, Bravo 1 - 12 etc.) ingame and his squad. Sou you could have ths struture in TS:


              Platoon(
              Alpha Squad(
              Alpha Fireteam[A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6),
              Bravo Fireteam[B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6)
              )
              Bravo Squad(
              Alpha Fireteam[A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6),
              Bravo Fireteam[B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6)
              )
              Charlie Squad(
              Alpha Fireteam[A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6),
              Bravo Fireteam[B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6)
              )
              Delta Squad(
              Alpha Fireteam[A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6),
              Bravo Fireteam[B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6](Player1, Player2, Player3, Player4, Player5, Player6)
              )
              )


              If the game itself poses some serious problems there due to it's mechanics is exactly the question I wanted to talk about in the thread I created the other day...

              I would say the only way to find out is to try it...

              Edit: grml, it doesn't accept my text formatting...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

                SOE should add the option to switch platoon member. That way you could decide who has what role by placing them in the correct number position. Soe could even add different color coding on your in-game squadlist, cutting it in two, thus automatically giving you easy to explain fireteams.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Hierarchical Role-Awareness

                  Or even give the SL the option to define the fireteams... that would be even better. Default could be 2*6 though.

                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X