About ELO

[Lykourgos]

I would not want to play this game if I didn't get to pick the commanders I fly for.

[Mikhail]

QUOTE (Lykourgos @ Feb 6 2007, 08:11 AM) Do you guys think there would be someway to implement a commander preference option? That way all the people who didn't mind flying for Voob1 against Hider1 would get assigned to Voob1's team, at least.

QUOTE I would not want to play this game if I didn't get to pick the commanders I fly for.[/quote]

So do you like to leave it to other sacrificially players to improve your game experience? The teams are this way without the autobalance option, cause sadly some players rather stay in lobby and rant about the game instead of joining the voob who could need the help. Then a poor noob wants to join the game (and there are enough noobs at the moment) goes to the voob comm and another vet is happy to join hider again.
A balance system can't work if half of the people don't be all set to do to support balancing. In this term any balance system or discussions about it are fruitless imho. Only chance to balance then would be to force the players somhow as mentioned above from me.

Mikhail

P.s. No offence, just food for thought /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
P.s.s. Maybe the voob or noob comm will get a hider2 if he can play real games with good pilots, who knowes. And just the challenge against stronger enemies improve the skill.

[Lykourgos]

Mikhail; It's less a voob commander than certain vet commanders that not only make horrible mistakes but refuse to listen that I'm thinking of here.

Really what I want in some ideal world is motivation for all the good commanders to command (and more good commanders!); that would make this whole discussion irrelevant.

I know that we need to help the voobs learn to command if we want more good commanders. That is why I'm involved with ACS, and why I tend to give everyone at least one chance- and then a second and a third chance if they are willing to listen and work to improve, even if they aren't very good.

[strike700]

To clairfy, "Stacking" and "Choosing your commander" are NOT the same thing. Am I stacking by flying for Blake, even though he is up against aarm?

Also, there seems to be a misconception that people only stack to "Improvez therz win Percantgez by ANEE Cost". Bad comms who do not listen AT all are probably the number one reason stacking exists.

-Strike700

[Greator_SST]

QUOTE (_SRM_Strike700 @ Feb 8 2007, 04:50 PM) Also, there seems to be a misconception that people only stack to "Improvez therz win Percantgez by ANEE Cost". Bad comms who do not listen AT all are probably the number one reason stacking exists.

...wrong. People stack because they would rather win than lose. Winning brings better tech, more kills, fewer ejects. It makes you feel good about yourself and helps you to feel superior to others. When you win, your skills are uber, when you lose, you lose not just once, but throughout the entire game. Winning is a warm fuzzy feeling. Losing is like sticking your head in a backed up toilet. Given the choice, people will choose to win. If trying to play for the better com means a greater liklihood of winning, that's what they'll do. After all, this is a game, we play to win, not to lose. There's probably nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, why would people anti-stack? Really just one reason. It brings benefits for the community as a whole. It's a reason that religions have tried for millenium to argue but fail miserably in their ability to convince any but the tiniest minority. Mark 9:35 puts it best. 'And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." It's not much of an argument, but I guess we'll all see if it has any validity or not.

There's another say that I like. 'The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least.' I've read that some studies that show some primitive societies with almost nothing have a greater amount of individual happiness than those with much.

It's hard for me to believe that less tech, or a less competent com equals more happiness, much less follow the principle. But there are a lot of people in this community, ACE for one (well, for an increasingly fewer number of ACE players anyway) and individual players here and there, who have given their best efforts to put it into practice.

[Anguirel]

QUOTE (Greator_SST @ Feb 8 2007, 05:01 PM) On the other hand, why would people anti-stack?

For the challenge. Flying against the better pilots gives you more of an opportunity to test your skills than flying with good players against less-skilled ones.

[Lykourgos]

Nice to know that Greator is telepathic and knows the every motivation of every person in the game.

Personally, I'll antistack every time... if the comm with the stack is someone I don't want to fly for.

This doesn't happen very often, though, because usually the comm with the stack is a good comm. That's why he has the stack.

The problem is in motivating good comms to comm against each other. Which is why I started this thread. Which has, unsurprisingly, devolved into another ad hominem argument about stacking.

[Greator_SST]

QUOTE (Lykourgos @ Feb 8 2007, 08:34 PM) Nice to know that Greator is telepathic and knows the every motivation of every person in the game.

Personally, I'll antistack every time... if the comm with the stack is someone I don't want to fly for.

This doesn't happen very often, though, because usually the comm with the stack is a good comm. That's why he has the stack.

The problem is in motivating good comms to comm against each other. Which is why I started this thread. Which has, unsurprisingly, devolved into another ad hominem argument about stacking.

...let's deconstruct Lky's logic for purposes of illustration.

I'll antistack every time... [but] this doesn't happen very often.

And regarding your good comm/bad comm rationale, thanks for validating everything I said in my earlier post.