In ONLINE team-work based games, are you the leader?

[NTJ]

Yes, this time it is specific to online games, team-work to be specific. So here's some questions:

Assuming your team is scattered in a game like CS, would you assume leadership position to be able to win?

Assuming there is a guy who can be a leader in a team, would you want to be a leader and create the strategy for the next round, or would you trust the other guy to lead the team and just follow his orders?

 

[own8ge]

INFJ here.

Assuming your team is scattered in a game like CS, would you assume leadership position to be able to win?

Yes. If I'm not the leader, we lose. (I've played cod4 professionally)

Assuming there is a guy who can be a leader in a team, would you want to be a leader and create the strategy for the next round, or would you trust the other guy to lead the team and just follow his orders?

I do not listen to anyone, as I most often, know myself whats the best thing to do. If I would listen to the leader, we will lose. (I also play very unpredictable and make situation dependent decisions. Most people can't do this so when we play I order everyone to shut the fuck up)
When I'm the leader I create the tactics yes. They are very thought through though, and are dependent on the spawning positions. So before hand I would show everyone all the nades and rushes etc. That might come into play, then when we play and we are spawned then I would fastly call out what everyone should AT LEAST do. And from there decide themselves what to do. For that I before hand also give tips. (What they could be doing)

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I prefer to have a team consisting of friends. I party. That way we all know each others styles and work to compliment them. We don't generally have a leader. We just decide on a plan and go for it.

Now, if I am not with friends I will not take the lead and sure as hell won't follow. I'll lone wolf it. And if I have a team and we are scattered I'll still stay with the plan and try to meet up with them.
Assuming I'm playing Battlefield. For Cod, fuck plans, fuck lead(ers)ing, I will go for kills.

 

[Nick]

Depends on the game you're playing.

For super fast paced fps I like to be more of a lone-wolf player, a leader of myself if you will.

Other games on consoles, you gotta work as a team, but then I'd prefer a sniper or lead player.

Then again, with teamwork, if I'm with a player on my team, I wouldn't leave them and fight to the death to help them overcome whatever obstacle is in the way.

Racing games I love to be in first (the objective), but if I'm playing with someone who's not a challenge, I would crash/slow-down to let them catch up, or almost always stay in 2nd place until the very end.

Regardless of the game, I like the score to be neck and neck, tied up, right to the end, then of course I'd try my hardest... In the least amount of time possible, to beat them. I've had so many WTF moments where the other player(s) were winning right till the very end, but I had the game planned out where I would gain the advantage as close as possible to the very last second/point of the game. Just makes it that much more fun

 

[Nezaros]

If no one else is leading and our team has fallen to shit, I'll tell everybody what to do, but I won't "lead". I don't trust people on the internet enough to do what I say, and if I'm going to lead I want everything done right. My best hope is that a few people will take my advice, but without a way to actually force others into following my direction I don't see the point in elevating myself like that.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Yes, when required.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Depends entirely on who I deem competent to lead. I'm a competent leader, but I don't go much further than that. I would stratergerize and coordinate plans if nobody else did and what I was playing required it, but otherwise I'll go with someone else leading. Either or.

 

[Latte]

When leading is not done real-time, but in between rounds or before playing (in the realm of strategy/counter-strategy creation and/or advisement to individuals), I take on a mild and advisory style of leadership and always present clear reasoning if there is time so things are up for discussion.

In some cases and periods I have "been the leader of" smaller units of larger teams and have been on council positions and such, but still, I usually involve myself through advice and explanation and tend to avoid as much as I can to tell people what to do in the moment of action.

I mostly automatically gravitate towards the role of adviser to whomever is taking on the role of full team leader when it comes to games with a lot of people on a team. I dislike it when it's not recognized that I should be a part of discussions of how things should be done unless I am a total newbie compared to those who are privy to and allowed to participate in such discussions.


In sum, advisory/strategic "open leadership/leader of discussion of how things are best done" works well. Real time micromanagement is definitely not my strong dress, nor is authoritarian leadership style. Idea meritocracy facilitator and prime contributor is norm.

 

[Etheri]

Only when nobody else is doing it properly and I am capable. While my mechanical skill and micro is usually subpar, my insight and understanding of the game is often far better than those at my level. Besides, telling people what to do over chat is bearable, even for an introvert.

 

[NTJ]

When leading is not done real-time, but in between rounds or before playing (in the realm of strategy/counter-strategy creation and/or advisement to individuals), I take on a mild and advisory style of leadership and always present clear reasoning if there is time so things are up for discussion.

In some cases and periods I have "been the leader of" smaller units of larger teams and have been on council positions and such, but still, I usually involve myself through advice and explanation and tend to avoid as much as I can to tell people what to do in the moment of action.

I mostly automatically gravitate towards the role of adviser to whomever is taking on the role of full team leader when it comes to games with a lot of people on a team. I dislike it when it's not recognized that I should be a part of discussions of how things should be done unless I am a total newbie compared to those who are privy to and allowed to participate in such discussions.


In sum, advisory/strategic "open leadership/leader of discussion of how things are best done" works well. Real time micromanagement is definitely not my strong dress, nor is authoritarian leadership style. Idea meritocracy facilitator and prime contributor is norm.

This is a very interesting answer.

If you are not a newbie and the leader is competent, do you still dislike it when he makes it clear that he's calling the shots and doesn't need your advice?

Etheri:

Wow I didn't think that anybody would enjoy telling people what to do over a chat, even an introvert. I for one, can't stand it!