Player cap
If you consider the dozens upon dozens of threads we have discussing tactics most people consider too small to worry about, yes, we do. This is of course how Andarvi's gameplay post came into being. And as Drizzo said, whining by vets over the little things really does help.HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Apr 23 2010, 05:10 PM) We have training?
Back on topic, this is a stupid idea. Sorry Ducky, its just not thought through. In our squad game vs RT a couple weeks ago, they had to sit multiple people in NOAT because SysX, as the largest squad, couldn't get enough people. Real life gets in the way of many of our squadmates. If you cap squads at 25 or 40, squads will be forced to get rid of players that have real life commitments. We have people who work most Sundays or are in the middle of military service for their respective countries. Capping squads will only hurt them. Why should people be kicked out of a squad because they can't make every squad game? Some of those guys are hilarious to fly with, even if they can only make the occasional Sunday squad game.
And this doesn't even begin to touch on the issues of people outside a squad telling those inside it how to run it. The few squads that have a player drain right now are losing people because of their own internal problems. Why punish other squads because nobody likes Striker? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you want "fair" matches, fix your own issues instead of imposing them on the rest of the community.
Edit: typo
Last edited by _SRM_Nuke on Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrChaos to Sharpfish wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos to Sharpfish @ Oct 2 2011, 08:55 AM) Damn there went my hope you died in a couch fire.
I know right?_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 23 2010, 06:33 PM) The few squads that have a player drain right now are losing people because of their own internal problems. Why punish other squads because nobody likes Striker? This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you want "fair" matches, fix your own issues instead of imposing them on the rest of the community.
Anyhow, Duck your idea is admirable, but I just don't think it will work in the real world. Nuke brings up some very good points. Take SF for example. We're hovering around 25-28 active, but several can't attend Sundays due to work or time zone issues. We have at least another 10+ out due to real life. As the old saying goes it is what it is!
The game itself is hitting a low point in the amount of people who play right now. Summer is around the corner and I'm sure we'll pick up new people like always. It's like of like the weather. Some years it's El Nino and others it is La Nina.
EDIT:
Typo alert!
Last edited by Striker on Fri Apr 23, 2010 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
--------------------------------------------
Governing Latin America by the beach with sandals, socks, shorts, multi-colored balloons, and an iron fist since 2006.
Governing Latin America by the beach with sandals, socks, shorts, multi-colored balloons, and an iron fist since 2006.
What Old Yeller is doing is trying to find something to stir things up a bit.
The rich get richer, and the poor are on death's door. Some of the better players from the less competitive squads are piling into the the other ones which are noticablely better. Yes I know some of the better talent is homegrown, just the drain is effecting things quite severely. This isnt an indictment of the better squads, how well they recruit, or even the players that run off to a more competitive squad etc etc. Rather its this bit.
I think you may lose a significant number of squads in the next few months, and new squads have $#@! all chance given the non-competitve bit. Even more importnatly is the public hazing they go through until the esprite de core is beaten out of them via heaping piles of bull @#(! on them. You may find yourself with alot fewer squads... unless the right answer is fewer squads. *shrug* If that is the new right number, or the best thing for all than . Personally it seems to me way to few. It also seems, to me, that more squads, with a narrow difference in their competitiveness would be much better for all....
No drafts, no forcing a player into a squad, rather just cap them since you make buddies with your squadies by playing with them. 25 to low, 40 to high, *shrugs* ok and the "we love them even if they dont play", I get, hell I've fit it from time to time myself, is really you just throwing up objections than some insurmountable issue.
edit: removed the number of squads since it was a shot in the dark and nothing more
The rich get richer, and the poor are on death's door. Some of the better players from the less competitive squads are piling into the the other ones which are noticablely better. Yes I know some of the better talent is homegrown, just the drain is effecting things quite severely. This isnt an indictment of the better squads, how well they recruit, or even the players that run off to a more competitive squad etc etc. Rather its this bit.
I think you may lose a significant number of squads in the next few months, and new squads have $#@! all chance given the non-competitve bit. Even more importnatly is the public hazing they go through until the esprite de core is beaten out of them via heaping piles of bull @#(! on them. You may find yourself with alot fewer squads... unless the right answer is fewer squads. *shrug* If that is the new right number, or the best thing for all than
. Personally it seems to me way to few. It also seems, to me, that more squads, with a narrow difference in their competitiveness would be much better for all.... No drafts, no forcing a player into a squad, rather just cap them since you make buddies with your squadies by playing with them. 25 to low, 40 to high, *shrugs* ok and the "we love them even if they dont play", I get, hell I've fit it from time to time myself, is really you just throwing up objections than some insurmountable issue.
edit: removed the number of squads since it was a shot in the dark and nothing more
Last edited by MrChaos on Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ssssh
See most of the replies in this thread. People don't like the idea because it would effect the status quo. Nukes post is quite funny, I don't like this because people I play once a month with wouldn't be able to play a squad game with me, even though I could fly with them in a pickup game and still enjoy their company!IB_ wrote:QUOTE (IB_ @ Apr 23 2010, 05:49 AM) I had a similar idea, but I doubt it would go anywhere.
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
Its not about the once a month game. Its about having them in the squad at all. You want to force squads to have a limit on the number of pilots. I fail to see how that makes any sense. What is wrong with having 6 squads (or however many we end up with going forward)? The community isn't big enough to support 9 squads and no amount of player caps is going to change that. I also find it amusing you are equating squad games and pickup games. Maybe in the #4 squad those are the same, but for the rest of us there is a vast difference.IB_ wrote:QUOTE (IB_ @ Apr 23 2010, 11:35 PM) Nukes post is quite funny, I don't like this because people I play once a month with wouldn't be able to play a squad game with me, even though I could fly with them in a pickup game and still enjoy their company!
MrChaos to Sharpfish wrote:QUOTE (MrChaos to Sharpfish @ Oct 2 2011, 08:55 AM) Damn there went my hope you died in a couch fire.
-
Duckwarrior
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:00 am
- Location: la Grande-Bretagne
The idea was to stop everybody rushing to two or three squads. Not to somehow, immediately make some kind of egalitarian paradise, where doves flap and bunnies hop around in a squad league where everybody ties for first place.
1. Most people playing competitive games want to be competitive, to at least have an outside chance of beating anybody else they are likely to play.
2. It is human nature for people to want to join the most competitive squads.
3. Drafts don't work in Allegiance, AW4 is an example of this. People aren't being paid, so if they don't like the team they are picked for they just don't play.
4. The "best squads" aren't going to handicap themselves by turning down good players, so they just continue to grow while the squads that really need to attract new players are unable to.
5. Self regulating systems don't work. One squad adopts them, another doesn't, and the balance quickly shifts.
6. Let's look at the current situation. Extremes, ACE with 18 actives play SysX with 40 actives, how will this game not result in SysX guys having to sit?
6b. How is the result not a forgone conclusion when SysX have the skills of 39 pilots to choose from when ACE have 17? This is not fun for anyone involved in the game.
6c. Imagine if SysX were only allowed 40 on their roster. How would that affect the current members other than gray guys having to find a new home?
6d. It would affect ACE, because now qualifying cadets will have to consider them (amongst others) as their next home rather than just applying to the you-know-who squads.
7. It is not competitive for one team to have an unfair advantage over another.
8. Name a sport where squads can be whatever size they want to be.
I'm not suggesting that people are forcibly placed in other squadrons.
Squadron leaderships would still need to be sure that pilots were a suitable fit, and the same would be true in reverse. It would make new squads more viable than they currently are if it was groups of vets that with squadron experience forming them.
It would not stop people from moving to the better squads, but it would mean that both sides would have to weigh their chances up more carefully than just the current "Aww add her to the roster, if it doesn't work out we can always boot her later".
The star quarterbacks are what really makes the difference around here. The top, most active commanders will always turn the heads of pilots who know what they are doing. However, once a squad hits its cap of allowable players then skilled pilots will have to look elsewhere if they want to play league games.
(Nom nom nomclemature intentional)
1. Most people playing competitive games want to be competitive, to at least have an outside chance of beating anybody else they are likely to play.
2. It is human nature for people to want to join the most competitive squads.
3. Drafts don't work in Allegiance, AW4 is an example of this. People aren't being paid, so if they don't like the team they are picked for they just don't play.
4. The "best squads" aren't going to handicap themselves by turning down good players, so they just continue to grow while the squads that really need to attract new players are unable to.
5. Self regulating systems don't work. One squad adopts them, another doesn't, and the balance quickly shifts.
6. Let's look at the current situation. Extremes, ACE with 18 actives play SysX with 40 actives, how will this game not result in SysX guys having to sit?
6b. How is the result not a forgone conclusion when SysX have the skills of 39 pilots to choose from when ACE have 17? This is not fun for anyone involved in the game.
6c. Imagine if SysX were only allowed 40 on their roster. How would that affect the current members other than gray guys having to find a new home?
6d. It would affect ACE, because now qualifying cadets will have to consider them (amongst others) as their next home rather than just applying to the you-know-who squads.
7. It is not competitive for one team to have an unfair advantage over another.
8. Name a sport where squads can be whatever size they want to be.
I'm not suggesting that people are forcibly placed in other squadrons.
Squadron leaderships would still need to be sure that pilots were a suitable fit, and the same would be true in reverse. It would make new squads more viable than they currently are if it was groups of vets that with squadron experience forming them.
It would not stop people from moving to the better squads, but it would mean that both sides would have to weigh their chances up more carefully than just the current "Aww add her to the roster, if it doesn't work out we can always boot her later".
The star quarterbacks are what really makes the difference around here. The top, most active commanders will always turn the heads of pilots who know what they are doing. However, once a squad hits its cap of allowable players then skilled pilots will have to look elsewhere if they want to play league games.
(Nom nom nomclemature intentional)
Last edited by Duckwarrior on Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy.
So you want a social club not a squad?_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 23 2010, 09:25 PM) Its not about the once a month game. Its about having them in the squad at all.
Read what Duck says, unless you are happy to play competitive games every other month at best._SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 23 2010, 09:25 PM) You want to force squads to have a limit on the number of pilots. I fail to see how that makes any sense.
You will have to ask RT as I am unsure if they are the same for them._SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 23 2010, 09:25 PM) I also find it amusing you are equating squad games and pickup games. Maybe in the #4 squad those are the same, but for the rest of us there is a vast difference.
Last edited by IB_ on Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
slap wrote:QUOTE (slap @ Oct 7 2009, 01:28 AM) good point, I concede.
Omnia Mutantur, Nihil Interit.