enrious2

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but to the best of my knowledge the devs have only done a name purge once or twice.

It is not an automatic policy.

That's how I always saw it, more of letting someone know that JfA is functionally a dead channel as opposed to a mod looking to slam someone.

Yes, but let me add two quick things.

1) It's not all that rare for a promising NCO to go through an advanced program and become commissioned as an officer, typically a 2nd Lieutenant. Thus you could have something along the lines of Private > Corporal > Sergeant > Lieutenant.

There is a big divide between Enlisted personnel and Commisioned Officers, but in the modern military one than be breached.

For example, I have a friend who enlisted into the Marines out of high school and attended college. While in college, he attended the Army's ROTC program. After 4 years, he became a 2nd Lieutenant in the Army.


2) A big key is to understand that not all officer job duties are the same. A 2nd Lieutenant in infantry is very likely to out fighting with his men. When the men get back into the rear, the Lieutenant will have to catch up on a lot of paperwork but even then, he has enlisted soldiers devoted to helping with the paperwork.

Had he been a 2nd Lieutenant in the supply corps, he very likely would not be out in the field with men; he would be at headquarters supervising enlisted men who are also in supply corps.

By no means are 100% of a unit's people fighters; think about the supply clerks, records clerks, medics, weaponsmith, mechanics and so on that are absolutely vital in keeping those fighters fed, equipped, paid, and safe.

Let's stay with infantry. If it's a low-level officer, such a lieutenant or captain then it would be very likely - that's their job. If it's a high-level one, then less so - their job is coordinating battles, not fighting. If a colonel or general steps into a fight, you must consider that in addition to the risk (if that senior officer is killed or wounded then you have a leadership void that will likely filter down several ranks), if that senior officer is out fighting they are not ensuring that their commanders know what's going on, ensuring that they they get reinforcements or supply, working with their fellow generals to ensure that the fighting is coordinated, ensuring that their staff is equipped to deal with unforseen circumstances, and so on.

As you go higher up in command, by definition you tend to have less personal involvement with what happens.



Again if it's an infantry lieutenant, it can be likely. Mind you, during a fight, they would probably be more focused on coordinating their squads or platoons and letting headquarters know what's going on that engaging in hand-to-hand combat, but it's possible.


I think you have a good grasp of it and note that the role of leaders changed over time due both to the sheer numbers of soldiers involved and to technology.

A good book to get a basic understanding of this would be Keegan's Mask of Command. In it, he shows you for example how Alexander was expected to (and could get away with) lead from the front of his men and yet how Wellington very much had to sit at the rear and coordinate the actions of his men.

Can we put this one to rest?

There are 12 lights!

Fwiw, I am in agreement with the above.

Although, I do think it'd be better to have remained with only the first paragraph, as all of us can come up with any number of "perhaps" statements.

However, I do think it important to know that in a programming project, not everyone knows everything.

*facepalm*

Of *course* it's a map bug. Has anyone, apart from you and a few others, even speculated that the devs intentially put the glowies in areas where they could not be located?

Wait, apart from you, who has suggested a rogue Dev coding away from the grassy knoll?


Seriously. You're just playing in this thread, right? It's cool. Just means I ain't playing the game with ya' anymore.

The bolded #3 is often one of the more challenging aspects of bug fixing. Not to mention frustrating to users.

I love how the only ones accusing the Devs of malicious intent are those supposedly defending them.

gg guys.

There are times I wish <blink> still worked.

Are ya positive?

My apologies. I wasn't aware that your post listing explanations and analysis of events was meant to be taken as nonsensical.

Good to see you don't red-raid much. And are you officially announcing that it's a change to prior i14 (observed) behavior?

As it is, I'm ok with it.

Nothing better than having a few blue raid companions in Atlas WW, enjoying the smell of burnt flesh when a lvl 5 toon runs into WW.

Ironblade, I'd ask that you not attempt to bring logic into this thread.

Anonymous negative reputation placed.

I do question the accuracy of such a question, given that it took a Repeat Offender sort showing the devs how it was possible for them to believe it possible.

Do you think the merit rewards were slanted towards what Repeat Offenders can accomplish versus the majority of non-Repeat Offender groups trying the Eden Trial?

Positron?

Dr. Q?

Katie?

ITF?

LGTF?

(As a hint, regardless of how you answer, the Repeat Offender sort benefit over the non-Repeat Offender sort)

I do not at all disagree with you here, although I hasten to point out that the manner of such a correction is relevent.

As an example, note the suposed (but not officially happening ergo they did not) punishments that could in theory have been meted out to persons who had the misfortune of leveling in MA faster than the devs though appropriate versus the dev changes to the game as a result of super-sidekicking.

Hypothetically, one is vulgar; the other inspired.