440 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

SaltBot wrote...

smudboy wrote...

What's your definition of a good soldier?

Would one with 2 years experience then be considered good enough to lead other soldiers?

How about 20?

How about 1000?

The definition of a good soldier is one who can complete all tasks required of his position to a high degree of proficiency while minimising costs.  It's no different than an employee in any other kind of public or private organisation, the only real difference is the kinds of tasks soldiers wind up doing.

Trust me when I say this: soldier skills and leadership skills are two different categories of skills; there is some overlap, but I think you'd be surprised by how little.  Some people make really, really good soldiers, but really, really crappy leaders.  Conversely, some people make very mediocre soldiers but turn out to be superb leaders.  When you talk about experience, don't just measure it in years.  You have to look at what kind of experience it is: as a soldier or as a leader?

Exactly. Two different skills.

[LuxDragon]

The rest of the squad doesn't want to follow him. They want to follow that ****ty old rifle, Jessie.

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...

The definition of a good soldier is one who can complete all tasks required of his position to a high degree of proficiency while minimising costs.  It's no different than an employee in any other kind of public or private organisation, the only real difference is the kinds of tasks soldiers wind up doing.

I agree.

Trust me when I say this: soldier skills and leadership skills are two different categories of skills; there is some overlap, but I think you'd be surprised by how little.  Some people make really, really good soldiers, but really, really crappy leaders.  Conversely, some people make very mediocre soldiers but turn out to be superb leaders.  When you talk about experience, don't just measure it in years.  You have to look at what kind of experience it is: as a soldier or as a leader?

I'm sure there are many social and romantic values to attribute to an organizer of men.  To me, I simply see it as communication skills.  Communication skills that can develop relationships and the like, give and show confidence, praise and provide strict feedback, when and when not to talk/act, etc.  Basic stuff.  When a Commander tells a lesser soldier to organize you and your soldier buddies, you may not like the decision/person/orders, but you follow commands.

However, similar to IoCaster's post, no one really has a relationship with everyone else (save Tali and Garrus, Miranda and Jacob.)  And, what...every squadmember, including Jacob, (save Miranda) doesn't even trust Cerberus?  They're all a team of badasses doing a quick, dirty and lethal job.  It's a Suicide Mission.  Who's the best suited for a Suicide Mission?  Aside from Shepard, Zaeed.

Let's say it's not about a group dynamic.  (Which it isn't.)  It's about following orders.  Let's assume everyone is loyal to Shepard.  Everyone follows Shepard orders.  If Shepard says Ms. Self-Appointed-2nd-in-command is in charge, people don't like that (she being Cerberus), but too bad.  Yet she does a fine job, despite having a scuffle with the most anti-Cerberus person, even having them blurt it out again at the meeting/having another person point out their mistrust.  Thus it's not an issue of trust, likability, respect, or any of that social stuff that takes time to develop.  Zaeed, who's more than qualified for the job, and more than capable of knowing when to talk and not to, whom no one has a problem with, doesn't perform well, even getting himself killed in the process, despite us knowing he's the galaxy's most famous mercenary known for his survival.

Modifié par smudboy, 04 août 2010 - 07:21 .

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

SaltBot wrote...

smudboy wrote...

What's your definition of a good soldier?

Would one with 2 years experience then be considered good enough to lead other soldiers?

How about 20?

How about 1000?

The definition of a good soldier is one who can complete all tasks required of his position to a high degree of proficiency while minimising costs.  It's no different than an employee in any other kind of public or private organisation, the only real difference is the kinds of tasks soldiers wind up doing.

Trust me when I say this: soldier skills and leadership skills are two different categories of skills; there is some overlap, but I think you'd be surprised by how little.  Some people make really, really good soldiers, but really, really crappy leaders.  Conversely, some people make very mediocre soldiers but turn out to be superb leaders.  When you talk about experience, don't just measure it in years.  You have to look at what kind of experience it is: as a soldier or as a leader?

Exactly. Two different skills.

And what are those skills?

[tonnactus]

Pedrak wrote...
 He really does not seem to value other people's life 

In his loyality mission he called vido a sadistic pig when he stated:"Everyone who run away i kill personally".

Modifié par tonnactus, 04 août 2010 - 07:32 .

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...

And what are those skills?

That would be "Leadership" and "Soldiering". Vague, I know, but they are two different skill sets.

Besides, if you think Leadership is about communication, how can you back Zaeed? He doesn't even have a dialogue wheel, for crying out loud!

Seriously, I'm just gonna drop this. I have no new arguments to make, and clearly the ones I've made aren't enough for you. I heartily agree to disagree.

Modifié par SaltBot, 04 août 2010 - 07:28 .

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...

smudboy wrote...

And what are those skills?

That would be "Leadership" and "Soldiering". Vague, I know, but they are two different skill sets.

Besides, if you think Leadership is about communication, how can you back Zaeed? He doesn't even have a dialogue wheel, for crying out loud!

Seriously, I'm just gonna drop this. I have no new arguments to make, and clearly the ones I've made aren't enough for you. I heartily agree to disagree.

Well hold up there.  You said leadership and soldering are two different skills.  What is the difference?

Zaeed doesn't seem to have any problem talking to Shepard, talking over the radio as a team leader, or telling us a variety of stories.  In fact, I'd say more stories than any other squadmate showcasing his "soldiering."  Compared to those with a dialog wheel (*glares at Garrus*), I find him a too chatty.

[Fiery Phoenix]

smudboy wrote...

And what are those skills?

A good leader is trustworthy, determined, motivated and motivating, and generally a smart, patient person. A soldier isn't necessarily that, but they believe in themselves and are ready to stand against the enemy no matter the cost. The characteristics of a leader aren't totally instinctive, however, but are gained after years of experience and full determination and loyalty to the cause. That's why you don't find these characteristics in every soldier, because people are different, think differently, act differently, see things different, etc -- even if they're working towards the same goal.

One may spend years in the military and end up being a superb soldier, but still lacks the necessary skills to be a good leader and manage a squad of soldiers. Not everyone is into that kind of work. It takes a special kind of person to be a leader. If you force someone who just prefers to follow orders or work on their own to lead a squad and send them on a mission, don't expect many survivors, if at all. The mission might well end successfully, but the team wouldn't have as much luck, because they lacked a leader they could count on to guide them through.

Leaders aren't born; they're made. And not everyone can be made a good leader, because there are people who simply don't possess the ability to lead a team and take full responsibility of everything. And this isn't a bad thing; it's just human nature.

Also, I don't need you to agree with me.

[Alpha-Centuri]

If you want a realistic logical suicide mission without breaking immersion, choose Thane as the vent, Zaeed as both leaders, Samara as the bubble. It doesn't get you the flashy achievement, but it feels right.

If I am reading correctly, you are wondering why everyone won't survive if you put Zaeed as the leader. It should be self-explanatory. Zaeed does work as a fireteam leader... You just lose a person. He always loses people, so it shouldn't be a shock.

As for the diversion team? Leaders get shot too. Makes it that much more meaningful...


edit: Your question would make more sense if you failed the mission if you chose him. You don't... One member dies. In terms of the situation, that is highly successful. Try not to metagame.

Modifié par Alpha-Centuri, 04 août 2010 - 08:00 .

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

A good leader is trustworthy, determined, motivated and motivating, and generally a smart, patient person.

Trustworthy: Zaeed's a professional.  Even more trustworthy after loyalty.
Motivated: 20 years of every night seeing Vido's face?  Check.  Most ruthless, relentless bounty hunter in the galaxy?  Check.  Has a moment where fighting the Collectors puts everything into perspective?  Check.  Surviving a bullet to the head on a rage towards revenge, 20 years later?  Check.
Motivating: If Zaeed doesn't motivate you, you are not alive.  This is probably because he hunted you down and killed you.
Generally smart: I disagree.  I'd say intelligent in the subject material he's in charge of.  Leader's do not necessarily need to be enlightened to be good.  Regardless, if intelligence implies knowledge in the subject, Zaeed's got soldiering figured out.
Patient: Waiting 20 years for reverenge: we are beyond grudges.

A soldier isn't necessarily that, but they believe in themselves and are ready to stand against the enemy no matter the cost. The characteristics of a leader aren't totally instinctive, however, but are gained after years of experience and full determination and loyalty to the cause. That's why you don't find these characteristics in every soldier, because people are different, think differently, act differently, see things different, etc -- even if they're working towards the same goal.

Years of experience: 20.
Loyalty to the cause: Check (money), check (loyalty mission) and check (Disabled Collector Cruiser comments.)

Yes I see what you're saying.

One may spend years in the military and end up being a superb soldier, but still lacks the necessary skills to be a good leader and manage a squad of soldiers. Not everyone is into that kind of work. It takes a special kind of person to be a leader. If you force someone who just prefers to follow orders or work on their own to lead a squad and send them on a mission, don't expect many survivors, if at all. The mission might well end successfully, but the team wouldn't have as much luck, because they lacked a leader they could count on to guide them through.

Abe to manage a squad of soldiers: Check.
Lead teams where people survived: Check.
Lead teams where people survived and guided them through: Check.

Leaders aren't born; they're made. And not everyone can be made a good leader, because there are people who simply don't possess the ability to lead a team and take full responsibility of everything. And this isn't a bad thing; it's just human nature.
Also, I don't need you to agree with me.

Well any "role" is made, so not following you there.

I bet we can all make people to be good leaders.  The only difference is natural aptitude, and time to completion.

There's no such thing as human nature.

I don't need you to agree with me either, but I'll reply anyway.

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...

Well hold up there.  You said leadership and soldering are two different skills.  What is the difference?

Soldiering is somewhat technical but mostly attitude: can you perform equipment handling, maintenance, etc. without someone watching over your shoulder, and follow direction in spirit, if not always to the letter (because, let's face it, sometimes to get from A to B you can't do it the way some folks want you to)?  Can you do all of this and still maintain a positive attitude and strong intrinsic motivation without making everyone who has to work with you ready to let you host a sock party?

Leadership is something more.  If I knew how to describe it in words that made sense, I'm certain I'd be a very wealthy motivational speaker who was turning out more Churchills, Eisenhowers, and Saladins than we knew what to do with.  All I can tell you is that when you serve with/under a good leader, you know it.

So with that out of the way, my whole point is that Zaeed and Samara posess excellent soldiering skills because that is what they have been doing most recently and for a solid chunk of time.  They weren't leading, they were soldiering.  Miranda, Jacob, and Garrus, conversely, have most recently and most often found themselves leading (projects, security teams, and vigilantes respectively) as opposed to simply soldiering.

Plus any guy who names his rifle has got to be way too crazy to be a good leader, mirite?

EDIT: Not to say that Zaeed and Samara couldn't make good leaders, but even if they were good leaders when they were younger they have been grossly out of practice lately.

Modifié par SaltBot, 04 août 2010 - 08:13 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

You're right, Smud, but let's just put it this way: The fact that Zaeed, of all squad members, explicitly tells you of missions where he lost some or all of his men is enough to prove that's he's not the leader type. And don't tell me Garuss; Garrus was betrayed. Dusty Everman himself said as much in a previous thread where someone was complaining about Zaeed not being the right choice for a leader in the suicide mission.



I'm done talking about this.

[smudboy]

SaltBot wrote...
Soldiering is somewhat technical but mostly attitude: can you perform equipment handling, maintenance, etc. without someone watching over your shoulder, and follow direction in spirit, if not always to the letter (because, let's face it, sometimes to get from A to B you can't do it the way some folks want you to)?  Can you do all of this and still maintain a positive attitude and strong intrinsic motivation without making everyone who has to work with you ready to let you host a sock party?

Right, so there's lots of grunt work involved then.  I'm assuming lots of taking orders, too?

Leadership is something more.  If I knew how to describe it in words that made sense, I'm certain I'd be a very wealthy motivational speaker who was turning out more Churchills, Eisenhowers, and Saladins than we knew what to do with.  All I can tell you is that when you serve with/under a good leader, you know it.

Right, so we don't know exactly.  But we can observe what leaders do, rigth?  There's lots of ordering people around.  I'm assuming having a plan, or a goal for the team to accomplish would also be accurate?

So with that out of the way, my whole point is that Zaeed and Samara posess excellent soldiering skills because that is what they have been doing most recently and for a solid chunk of time.  They weren't leading, they were soldiering.  Miranda, Jacob, and Garrus, conversely, have most recently and most often found themselves leading (projects, security teams, and vigilantes respectively) as opposed to simply soldiering.

And let's assume they are good leaders.  What made them good leaders?

Plus any guy who names his rifle has got to be way too crazy to be a good leader, mirite?

EDIT: Not to say that Zaeed and Samara couldn't make good leaders, but even if they were good leaders when they were younger they have been grossly out of practice lately.

Garrus seems to have a rather loving relationship with whatever gun he has equipped.  Zaeed's gun-love is merely specific.

I'm not so sure skills in leadership go away simply because one hasn't been in practice of it lately.

I'm kind of curious though, what makes them grossly out of practice?  Seems Zaeed has been on all sorts of missions all over the place.  He could've had nothing but leadership missions just these last years for all its worth.  Whereas we know Garrus's, Jacob and Miranda's 2 year time frame, and we all know how those turned out.

[smudboy]

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

You're right, Smud, but let's just put it this way: The fact that Zaeed, of all squad members, explicitly tells you of missions where he lost some or all of his men is enough to prove that's he's not the leader type. And don't tell me Garuss; Garrus was betrayed. Dusty Everman himself said as much in a previous thread where someone was complaining about Zaeed not being the right choice for a leader in the suicide mission.

I'm done talking about this.

And one of those stories was his own Suicide Mission: and there was many after.  So we're going on a suicide mission where his team died, but he survived?  And he's gone on other Suicide Missions?  Why wouldn't I want this guy on the team if he has experience in surviving impossible odds, multiple times?  He could teach me a thing or two.

Garrus was betrayed.  Miranda was betrayed.  Zaeed was betrayed.  And Jacob's a nobody.  Not seeing a difference.

[Il Divo]

He had a high ranking position in the Blue Suns, shouldn't he know a thing or two about leading?

I was waiting for this. I was getting bored of reading the "ME3 squad will be new" thread. It's nice to see a good ol'-fashioned "Zaeed- squad leader" topic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 août 2010 - 08:41 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

smudboy wrote...

FieryPhoenix7 wrote...

You're right, Smud, but let's just put it this way: The fact that Zaeed, of all squad members, explicitly tells you of missions where he lost some or all of his men is enough to prove that's he's not the leader type. And don't tell me Garuss; Garrus was betrayed. Dusty Everman himself said as much in a previous thread where someone was complaining about Zaeed not being the right choice for a leader in the suicide mission.

I'm done talking about this.

And one of those stories was his own Suicide Mission: and there was many after.  So we're going on a suicide mission where his team died, but he survived?  And he's gone on other Suicide Missions?  Why wouldn't I want this guy on the team if he has experience in surviving impossible odds, multiple times?  He could teach me a thing or two.

Garrus was betrayed.  Miranda was betrayed.  Zaeed was betrayed.  And Jacob's a nobody.  Not seeing a difference.

LOL! 

[Flamewielder]

My personal take on it is simply that Zaeed is a loner, not a leader. He's a survivor, plain and simple. Founding a merc company doesn't require leadership, just knowing the right people. He's a hard-as-nails soldier with years of combat experience as a lone gun, not as a leader.



For the same reason, he contributes greatly to the team holding the line (being a tough-to-kill bastard with an assault/battle rifle, the ultimate stand-off weapon).

[ADLegend21]

Zaeed doesn't care about the lives of other people. He says so in his damn mission (which is why I'm saving it for post suicide mission so I can kill the bastard) he tells you his mission is to save the refinery people then once we start it's a 180 to kill vido and to let the refinery workers burn so Vido can die. what kind of leader willingly goes against his own mission just to kill someone? Garrus was able to keep one team of people alive for years, Miranda's kept many people (including Jacob) alive for all of he missions prior to wilsons betrayal, and Jacob kept the council alive. nuff said.

[tonnactus]

smudboy wrote...



Garrus was betrayed.  Miranda was betrayed.  Zaeed was betrayed.  And Jacob's a nobody.  Not seeing a difference.

And miranda was betrayed twice.By wilson and niket.Doesnt that say something about her knowledge of human nature,
a important thing leaders should have?

[Fiery Phoenix]

ADLegend21 wrote...

Zaeed doesn't care about the lives of other people. He says so in his damn mission (which is why I'm saving it for post suicide mission so I can kill the bastard) he tells you his mission is to save the refinery people then once we start it's a 180 to kill vido and to let the refinery workers burn so Vido can die. what kind of leader willingly goes against his own mission just to kill someone? Garrus was able to keep one team of people alive for years, Miranda's kept many people (including Jacob) alive for all of he missions prior to wilsons betrayal, and Jacob kept the council alive. nuff said.

Well said. Very much so.

EDIT: I've always had the impression that Zaeed merely used his men as bait to get to his primary objective in his past missions.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 04 août 2010 - 09:06 .

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...

I'm kind of curious though, what makes them grossly out of practice?  Seems Zaeed has been on all sorts of missions all over the place.  He could've had nothing but leadership missions just these last years for all its worth.  Whereas we know Garrus's, Jacob and Miranda's 2 year time frame, and we all know how those turned out.

This goes back to that ridiculous diatribe I went on a few pages back about why no one is up in arms about Thane being a poor choice for fire team leader.  You look at Thane and see a lot of qualities you would likely observe in an archetypically "good" leader.  But through the information presented to us as players through dialogue, interaction, etc., we are given the impression that Thane, for lack of a more succinct term, does not play well with others.

You're right, maybe Zaeed has been doing nothing but leading small teams for the past year straight.  Maybe Mordin became a scientist because he flunked out of drama school.  Maybe Joker joined Cerberus to pay off his gambling debts.  We as players don't know this because the game doesn't present us with this information.  What we can deduce from the information that the game has presented to us is that Zaeed is a lone wolf bad ass with a hot temper, a mean streak, a fierce unwillingness to die and often complete and utter apathy for what other people do or think.  We are shown that Samara works alone, unattached to anyone or anything but her code and her mission to see Morinth dead, and that she clearly has no idea why people keep asking her if it's hot in here or if it's just them.  If you interpret the information as presented by the game to be different, more power to you.

I feel that, based on my personal experience, you are over emphasising the ability to give/take orders and underestimating the vast majority of the human population's inability to become good leaders, even through practise and experience.

As a sidenote, smudboy, I want to say that I lol'd but good at your video review.  It was no "Phantom Menace", but it was pretty darn astute.

Modifié par SaltBot, 04 août 2010 - 08:59 .

[JedTed]

If you wanna argue who has the best leadership skills then what about Grunt? His brain has been pre-programmed with the knowlage of the ancient krogan warlords so he should know something about leading an army to victory.



Or Legion, yeah he's a machine so it'd be difficult for some people to follow him but he's smarter than the average geth and built for combat.

[smudboy]

tonnactus wrote...

smudboy wrote...



Garrus was betrayed.  Miranda was betrayed.  Zaeed was betrayed.  And Jacob's a nobody.  Not seeing a difference.

And miranda was betrayed twice.By wilson and niket.Doesnt that say something about her knowledge of human nature,
a important thing leaders should have?

Leaders' aren't born; they're made *crosses arms*

[SaltBot]

smudboy wrote...

Leaders' aren't born; they're made *crosses arms*

So that's why Miranda makes a good leader!