DeletedUser
It's difficult when you say, "Set your target 3 steps forward," and people can't even do that.
DeletedUser
People are more likely to follow orders if they respect them. If I don't trust a leader, I tend to hide more than if I do. Like this off hour w9 defense against a south flag rush. Most of the onliners died keeping the rushers off the flag long enough for our offliners to finish them on mwfossils orders. It's a hard order for a premium GG dueler to follow, but I still moved to the flag with 500 hp instead of retreating to the barracks.
FilthyPete is another one. He experiments a lot, but I'm still willing to follow him even if his strategy is crazy. Even if it fails miserably I know he'll learn from it. Bad leaders never learn from their mistakes and tend to make the same ones over and over again.
kayakpaddler was another leader most people would die for. This, though an old school battle, was one of those unwinnable battles I was talking about. A 62:84 medium attack which we won, though there's no replay because it's before the reports had all the data westforts uses.
Dying for a good leader is one thing, dying for someone who orders an east, wall-only flag rush is another. That's one order I have a hard time following, because it IS suicide with no chance of succeeding unless the defenders don't bother blocking. They can rationalize it by saying a 1% chance of winning is better than no chance huddling on the side, but trying to let your people get something out of the battle besides a quick ride home is better leadership than a longshot gamble on their lives.
FilthyPete is another one. He experiments a lot, but I'm still willing to follow him even if his strategy is crazy. Even if it fails miserably I know he'll learn from it. Bad leaders never learn from their mistakes and tend to make the same ones over and over again.
kayakpaddler was another leader most people would die for. This, though an old school battle, was one of those unwinnable battles I was talking about. A 62:84 medium attack which we won, though there's no replay because it's before the reports had all the data westforts uses.
Dying for a good leader is one thing, dying for someone who orders an east, wall-only flag rush is another. That's one order I have a hard time following, because it IS suicide with no chance of succeeding unless the defenders don't bother blocking. They can rationalize it by saying a 1% chance of winning is better than no chance huddling on the side, but trying to let your people get something out of the battle besides a quick ride home is better leadership than a longshot gamble on their lives.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
The plan: http://www.westforts.com/s/JBo
Implementation: http://www.westforts.com/en15/battles/battle/16418
Respect isn't even necessary, but it's frustrating when people don't argue with the numbers but decide to not follow orders during the battle.
Implementation: http://www.westforts.com/en15/battles/battle/16418
Respect isn't even necessary, but it's frustrating when people don't argue with the numbers but decide to not follow orders during the battle.
Deleted User - 1693871
Well said Elmyr.
And kayakpaddler is the standard that all others have to measure up to.
And kayakpaddler is the standard that all others have to measure up to.
DeletedUser
Respect is necessary. If you prove yourself to the people you're leading, they will listen. If you don't show that you're a good leader who can give sensible orders, then they won't listen.
As for that attack, that's bordering with confusing your own players. There is only so much you can do before your attack gets too crazy for anyone to comprehend.
It's best to have your offliners and onliners together, then move the onliners. Many people say they'll be online then end up being offline, and vice versa. This goes hand in hand with having everyone set their target, not just the offliners. You'll end up with 30k "online" HP sitting at the back without a target.
Also, people do better with pictures, not words. I never read the text below the picture, but I will immediately see an arrow. It took me a while to find where the attackers were supposed to target.
And Elm, how far along in the building process was that fort when it was attacked? That effects things as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Respect is nice and all but you can't argue with cold, hard logic.
So Jouais, let's just replace all the literature in the world with picture books while we're at it?
So Jouais, let's just replace all the literature in the world with picture books while we're at it?
DeletedUser
They're called movies.
DeletedUser
Yea, they're totally going to implement time-lapse on westforts :laugh:
DeletedUser
Logic is minimizing LOS. Not giving LOS to four towers for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Ah yes, just minimise los and all will be good, right? Let's just chip away at their hp and hope we win, right?
Or, actually ko them in a round(maximizing our los) while swapping out tanks on point(their greatly divided los).
Or, actually ko them in a round(maximizing our los) while swapping out tanks on point(their greatly divided los).
DeletedUser
Oh you're right, it makes much more sense to maximize LOS oh great leader.
Here's another sign of a good leader: good strategy starts with good personal tactics, which is about understanding LOS and knowing when and were to move. The best leaders generally have good average numbers on West Forts. in 2009 that was an average of around 1k per battle. In 2010 it was 2000. Today it's more like 3 to 5k, depending on how many old battles you have keeping it down and how often you can be online.
Edit: And before anyone says anything, good numbers don't automatically mean you'll be a good leader, but good leaders usually have good numbers.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Don't have anything else to say so you resort to ad hominem fallacy? Thanks for playing! 
DeletedUser
Don't have anything else to say so you resort to ad hominem fallacy? Thanks for playing!
That's not an ad hominem. Good fighters make good leaders, bad fighters don't. Some are just naturals and lead well from the beginning before they make a name for themselves, and there are the occasional late bloomers, but if you don't know where to move you can't tell other people where to move.
DeletedUser
And how exactly are you going to prove such a thing in my case?
DeletedUser
I thought this thread was "What Makes a Good Leader?" not "Am I a Good Leader?"
DeletedUser
Good leadership requires a solid theoretical framework to operate under, which you seem to disagree with, though failing to disprove.
DeletedUser
It's disproved with a thousand bad battles with a leader who thought he had a great plan. You're confusing the map with the territory.
DeletedUser15641
Not 100% true as if your flag rushing.
DeletedUser22493
Well said.
My personal experience is that if the leader is confident, the team gets confident. A confident team is a united team and are more prone to work together for the greater good, instead of individual achievements, and looking after their own backs.
Being a good strategist and micro manager is important as well, but it's no good if people won't follow your orders.
One of my best examples to this is Zobel on W11. One of my favorite FF leaders if I may add. She will from the first round go like this:
"We got this. Do as I say and we will win this easy".
Did we always win? Nah, but looking back at the few losses we've had with her leading, it's mostly been due to minor unpredictable events. But it's always been fun, and id follow any maniac orders she'd give, because if she believes in it, its good enough for me.
So, what makes a bad leader? What makes people less willing to follow your orders?
The first thing that comes to mind is when an attack has failed. For instance, the defenders has a 8k advent tank on the flag, and its 10 rounds left. Then the leader orders everyone to rush, no matter what HP or level.
Everyone knows its pointless, and that they are just gonna die for nothing. But the leader insists and starts naming the players that don't rush.
Orders like that will cost you respect. It's better to just admit defeat, thank your minions for their great attempt and let them get some final exp.
Another thing is blaming players, or even worse, the whole team. Even if your team really did a crappy job, don't tell them that!
That has never ever in FF history helped any leader win anything, and the respect you loose as a leader is a heavy price to pay for a boost to your ego.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Logic, knowledge of tactics and strategy, charisma, authority, communication skills, instincts, experience, confidence, determination, trust and respect of your team. Here are some good things to have but of course you don't them all to be a good leader. Being strong on some areas can make up for lacking in others.
And also you gotta remember that a good leader is nothing without a good team. There's usually a lot of things to think about when leading so individual players taking care of some important details without even being told to makes the leader's job much easier. Good players can find their way to good positions on their own and open up more options for the leader that way.
About the futile flag rushes, there are also people who'd rather rush and go out "heroically" than wait and postpone the end by sitting around bored. Personally I'm for surviving longer though. The longer the battle goes the longer there is a chance for the opponent to make a mistake. It depends on the atmosphere and attitude of the team but usually I wouldn't order a hopeless rush. Winning isn't everything and surviving is something at least.
And also you gotta remember that a good leader is nothing without a good team. There's usually a lot of things to think about when leading so individual players taking care of some important details without even being told to makes the leader's job much easier. Good players can find their way to good positions on their own and open up more options for the leader that way.
About the futile flag rushes, there are also people who'd rather rush and go out "heroically" than wait and postpone the end by sitting around bored. Personally I'm for surviving longer though. The longer the battle goes the longer there is a chance for the opponent to make a mistake. It depends on the atmosphere and attitude of the team but usually I wouldn't order a hopeless rush. Winning isn't everything and surviving is something at least.