Great commanders..

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:32 pm

I hereby challenge Alexander the Great to comm against me in a game of Allegiance.

May the best man win.

Duckwarrior · Post by **Duckwarrior** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:37 pm

Whenever I see spidey on a lose on purpose jag, I save him from himself and win the game. However, sometimes even I have to go off line, I am deputising all of you as my proxies should this be the case.

blackrob · Post by **blackrob** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:57 am

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jun 10 2008, 07:39 AM) sometimes i try to lose on purpose

Love when this happens.

I stack when the lesser team has people I want to avoid. Of course I may want to avoid the lesser commander because I like to win.

Unfortunately, flying for the fun commanders is rarely anti-stacking.

Exo · Post by **Exo** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:49 am

Yeah let's face it, nobody wants to join a team when they know the commander will sit on a stack of money, fail to buy any miners, put an op next to their home while a ref is pushed forward, and insists on trying to buy all the tech structures without an economy or intent to purchase any actual tech.

We all learn, and rather quickly too, who those comms are that will provide us with a good game. More importantly, we all can quickly identify whether the opposing commander is of similar standard.

You will probably find that most people will fly either team if there are two newer commanders who buy in a sensible order. Likewise people will tend to join either team when you have two top class comms pitted against each.

It is possible people will join either side if two useless comms are facing off, however more likely is that everyone will point and laugh, and the lobby will degenerate into pithy one liners.

You will not see people joining both sides equally if a top rate comm is sized against a useless comm. Because it's not gonna be fun for the losing team, as a general rule. Hell, it's not great fun on the winning side necessarilly, but at least it's an easy stat pad. And what sane person (barring Asc) will pass up on that?

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:30 pm

Exo wrote:QUOTE (Exo @ Jun 13 2008, 12:49 PM) Yeah let's face it, nobody wants to join a team when they know the commander will sit on a stack of money, fail to buy any miners, put an op next to their home while a ref is pushed forward, and insists on trying to buy all the tech structures without an economy or intent to purchase any actual tech.

We all learn, and rather quickly too, who those comms are that will provide us with a good game. More importantly, we all can quickly identify whether the opposing commander is of similar standard.

You will probably find that most people will fly either team if there are two newer commanders who buy in a sensible order. Likewise people will tend to join either team when you have two top class comms pitted against each.

It is possible people will join either side if two useless comms are facing off, however more likely is that everyone will point and laugh, and the lobby will degenerate into pithy one liners.

You will not see people joining both sides equally if a top rate comm is sized against a useless comm. Because it's not gonna be fun for the losing team, as a general rule. Hell, it's not great fun on the winning side necessarilly, but at least it's an easy stat pad. And what sane person (barring Asc) will pass up on that?

I like the challenge of helping the @#(!e comm get better and / or winning the game under the complacent fools that feel the game is "won".

Not always happens, but some /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:02 pm

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Jun 12 2008, 10:37 AM) Whenever I see spidey on a lose on purpose jag, I save him from himself and win the game.

You always only think of yourself Ducky! What about those who feel excited to beat me after I have said I am trying to lose on purpose? Do you not think of their feelings at all?

/wub.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":iluv:" border="0" alt="wub.gif" />

WhiskeyGhost · Post by **WhiskeyGhost** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:11 pm

I like to fly for any commander, as long as the game can render some sort of a challenge. I find no pleasure in kicking a teams ass without being a necessary factor in said ass whooping. In other words, i'm not satisfied being that friend who goes around saying "We totally kicked those guys asses" when all he did every time a fight breaks out is hide behind the juke box.

also, challenge = yes, impossible = no ty

Dorjan · Post by **Dorjan** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:39 pm

ah, true that...

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:41 pm

This is human nature. In competition, people want to win. To win, they surround themselves with the people who perform the best. It happens in every competitive situation - sports, business, politics, etc. Of course it happens in video games, too. There is only one way to achieve balance, and it is the same way in every area. Fairness must be enforced.

Take a look at American football, and compare it to baseball. What is baseball's great shortcoming? The lack of a salary cap. So you've got a handful of teams that are *always* vying for the championship because they outspend everyone else and stack their teams with the best players. Football? The salary cap prevents a stack. So now you've got a situation in which, any given sunday, anything can happen. Things are so closely matched that even the "best" team with the "best" coach can be beaten (ie the game that will forever live on in infamy, the 2007 super bowl - pats v giants).

So if we apply these ideas to alleg, in every pickup game there is a huge likelihood of a stack. It's human nature. The way to prevent the stack? Enforce fairness. So either pick teams, or autobalance, or random, or whatever.

fuzzylunkin1 · Post by **fuzzylunkin1** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:53 pm