Maybe, I'm don't know the technicalities, so let's stick to one for the time being.

AFAIK (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) currently it doesn't matter if you're leader or not, you just have to push the "Accept (squad)" button when taking an assignment. And this only affects whether the reward will be shared or not, it does not affect objective sharing (there is no such thing at all).

I made an emphasis, maybe you missed that part.

Yes true ,but in method 1 only the squad leader can complete assignments right?
Which is kinda of  the same, although much better than what we have , I still prefer method 2.

I would change something in method 2

Instead of a squad limits, could it be possible to add some type of trigger to detect agent is actually helping out on the current assignments to get the rewards? ie NPC trigger we have for loot containers

Personally I prefer option 2 - but with the caveat that I'd limit the number of concurrent missions the squad can accept - e.g. just one or 2 concurrent missions .... this will not make it too easy to complete multiple missions... but also give the opportunity for all squad members to contribute to completing the objective ... e.g. - mine x number of y - anyone in squad can mine y to contribute to objective number x.

first both have their advantage.

the first ones is especially nice if you bring in assighnments for squads. that are hard enought that a solo person can not achieve it. the concept would worp pretty fine here.
depends on what youare up to on your new pve content but i think that will suit it pretty well.

for the second option this is indeed a double edged sword. on one hand it is nice for teamwork and especially to level up (standing wise) multible chars. especially if you dont realy fit into the required role very well.
if you want to change the squad system that way then i recommend not two different forms of squads. more i would suggest a option for sub-groups that can be formed on the fly in the existing squad. here you could limit the number of the "assighnment group typ" to your needed 5 agents.

overall i would prefer the first option. but gain with not knowing what will come from you in the future its hard to tell what will be better. i personaly think a way to reward squad assignments and not punish the squad leader for sharing would be a good way to go. why bring your friends if you can solo it easy and you dont have to share...

squad assighnments that require multible ppl not just by difficulty but also as a requirement in the mission itself would also a nice thing. like activating things at multible locations at the same time ... ... ...

its a hard call. maybe celebros idea with both are good and have their use (dependent on assighnment type) and could be implemented.

+1

It would seem to me...the simplest idea is usually the best way of doing things.

I like paying people to mission for me while I sleep.

I voted for #2 because I like it better, but still would prefer changes even to that.

I would like to see something separated from squad for assignments using another name like projectteam.
In my opinion every team member should require to accept the assignment in order to participate on the reward and should be within range in order to get update. This range could be either the usual red circle or nexus range or within detection range. Guess best solution would be introduction of an assignment range.
This will be necessary to avoid one guy just standing below terminal and getting all rewards.

The most important change to the actual mechanic should be that the "green circle" on NPC is valid for all team member regardless who is fastest in lock an shoot. And dmg dealed (like in a lot other games) still should not be the "killcounter", as Ewar need to get team reward, as their job is at least as important as the job of the dmg dealer.

It is clear only 24 people play this game.

addition to my post before:
the choice depends on the changes to come

One of the great roles in this question would play the alliance feature:
Right now you may have really big squads which holds everyone of the alliance or at least of the corp - with those option number 2 is way better, to compare the active assignments of each member.

If the alliance feature will come soon - the first option would be better since the squads will only be needed to group certain activities (instead of grouping players with several activities like it's now). The squads would be smaller and the squadleader can easily decide which missions can be taken for the whole squad.

Another point is if there will be changes to the mission system like a min-max amount of participating agents (similiar to beacon farming) where the reward would be calculated depending on actual characters in squad and agents needed for the mission. Again method 1 points here

If any changes like these are planned method 1 would have more benefits, but if we start from the current state I'd have to go for method 2.
(Since I hope for some new variety in missions and a alliance system I choose the first option )

Uh, what exactly would be the reason for this "huge influx of nic"?