Free Allegiance Forums

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jun 26 2008, 12:08 AM) Is it just me or do the top 2 or 3 squads take pretty much the strongest from other squads or cadet consistently?

Welcome to allegiance. You must be new here.


Seriously this has been the standard since I started playing. When I started it was Syx and XT who had most of the best pilots. It's just another form of stacking. The only way to fix it is with some sort of draft but that will never work in a recreational game like alleg.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jun 26 2008, 01:30 PM) Look at that against @XT absorbing a ton of the old SRM's (who could have really helped another squad) or @ACE which seems to be more like 95% of the current squad coming from other squads and is also one of the largest most skilled suqads.

The part about @ace is factually incorrect. Our roster is roughly 30% straight from cadet. Another roughly 30% were the original founding members or people who joined shortly after the squad was founded (who of course were from other squads). So that leaves only about 30% that left other squads and joined after the squad was established.

And as McW said, its kindof an unfair comparison given that @ace is relatively new compared to many of the established squads, so it's only natural that we would get defectors as we matured. Also I think a lot of the vets that come to us are attracted by the anti-stacking pledge.

Mr. Kltplzyxm wrote:QUOTE (Mr. Kltplzyxm @ Jun 26 2008, 06:40 PM) Wrong. It's not about winning or losing. A squad with a good environment won't care if they keep losing so long as they are in lockstep.

Dear MrK as you said earlier you are judging those things from the @ACE perspective. /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

All your experience is coming from a squad that consist for the most part of grizzled (settled) vets. So far, you guys never had to deal with a serious losing streak nor did you had the pleasing experience of seeing your efforts in training new people go down the drain (when they would leave in such a streak).

I am just drawing my conclusion from 2+years of RT membership. Besides friendships, constantly winning is one of the strongest bonds a squad can have and for a good amount of people friendship alone just isn't enough reason to stay in a squad. In hard times only the really committed (or careless /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />) that people stay. (which btw doesn't mean I have any grief against the ~40 vets that left RT in the past 3years)

Immz: You make me quote myself:

gr4vity wrote:QUOTE (gr4vity @ Jun 26 2008, 06:00 PM) Best part of this cycle is the occasional rant of 'strong squads' that the 'weak squads' don't recruit enough. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

We are not blind or too stupid. We just became careful over time and started to pick the cherries that don't have a worm inside /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

See, why should we aggressively recruit someone who wouldn't really fit character wise and is likely to leave sooner or later anyway?
Imho in the long run the squad benefits from a more natural (slower) linear grow rather then to recruit exponential and lose its character. Of course, some times that's not enough to compensate the usual drop in activity of long-term members.


Regards
grav@RT /cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="cool.gif" />

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jun 27 2008, 11:30 AM) The part about @ace is factually incorrect.

See my post about the number being an exag to show the difference between movement between middle squads to ace and from ace to middle squads. I use @ACE because as far as I could tell they are the squad that has the most from other squads no matter if that number is 60% or 95% Please stop getting hung up on the number as I was using them only as an example

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jun 27 2008, 11:18 AM) Seriously this has been the standard since I started playing.

The nice thing is some of us remember what things were like before you started playing /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> and would maybe like to see more squads approaching equality not less (as it was before you started playing)

I think spidey's point isn't that he thinks @ACE are mean ugly people. He is just using ACE as an example that he wishes more people would have gone to BS or GB.

What Spidey doesn't realize is that we turn down lots of people hoping that they would go to BS or GB.

spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jun 27 2008, 11:54 AM) See my post about the number being an exag to show the difference between movement between middle squads to ace and from ace to middle squads. I use @ACE because as far as I could tell they are the squad that has the most from other squads no matter if that number is 60% or 95% Please stop getting hung up on the number as I was using them only as an example

Well I agree to not get hung up on the numbers if you agree not to make wild exaggerations to attempt to prove a point.

QUOTE The nice thing is some of us remember what things were like before you started playing /unsure.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":unsure:" border="0" alt="unsure.gif" /> and would maybe like to see more squads approaching equality not less (as it was before you started playing)[/quote]

Yeah I think I've heard about that fabled time before I started playing. As I have heard it told, there was this squad called Jihaad that pretty much dominated every other squad for a long time until these upstarts called XT beat them... seriously, was there ever a time when there were a good number of even squads? Don't tell me, it was during the AZ when the game actually had thousands of active players, right?

Look I don't disagree with you. I'd love it if we had a bunch of highly competitive squads. But I doubt that's going to happen without some drastic measures that nobody wants (like a draft and trades and fake salary caps), or until we learn how to change human nature.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jun 27 2008, 02:03 PM) Well I agree to not get hung up on the numbers if you agree not to make wild exaggerations to attempt to prove a point.
Yeah I think I've heard about that fabled time before I started playing. As I have heard it told, there was this squad called Jihaad that pretty much dominated every other squad for a long time until these upstarts called XT beat them... seriously, was there ever a time when there were a good number of even squads? Don't tell me, it was during the AZ when the game actually had thousands of active players, right?

Sounds like an agreement! Yes there was a time and it may or may not have been during the AZ (I coulnd't tell you as I never played AZ myself) that there were numerous pretty even squads and pretty much every squad game was intense and fun

Mr. Kltplzyxm wrote:QUOTE (Mr. Kltplzyxm @ Jun 27 2008, 01:49 PM) What Spidey doesn't realize is that we turn down lots of people hoping that they would go to BS or GB.

I realize it now that someone posted it a few pages ago - prior to that - no I did not know

mcwarren4 wrote:QUOTE (mcwarren4 @ Jun 27 2008, 10:31 AM) I think spidey's point isn't that he thinks @ACE are mean ugly people.

*coughserbcough* *coughsnackcough* *coughdeficough*