Game counted?

[Ozricosis]

QUOTE This is why I told someone on TS who made a similar comment about Ozzy that Ozzy was probably holding the game together as much as anyone else at that point- because Ozzy, too, was always willing to command. Until he blew a short-circuit.[/quote]

I have never lost my temper once in Allegiance. You sir are a lying cheating horse thief. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> /wub.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":iluv:" border="0" alt="wub.gif" /> /ninja.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ninja:" border="0" alt="ninja.gif" />

[guitarism]

To get @ACS working again would be nice. I came in about 8 months ago I tihnk, and at that point it was a big deal that they opened up the @ACS forums to everyone. I read it from basically day 1 and used it as a side-by-side course description when going through cadet. Some of the things mentioned in ACS were a little different then Cadet was talking about. Why? It was meant for more advanced people.

My point is, that your always going to have different caliber players. Your going to have those that are very serious, that know the game and how to play it and what to do.

Then your gonna have people that know whats going on, may not be very good, but care and try.

Your going to have people that know what's going on, don't care, or just suck.

And your going to have people who are just clueless.

The differing factor in all of these situations is wether the people are willing to learn, and sadly, it seems people are not willing, or not capable of taking criticism when it is offered, or advice when it is given. It's aparent in the attitudes of some people that have been here awhile, and many that have just shown up. The rant BV locked the other day is just one of many that won't listen when it comes to command, and trying to instruct in such things as flying is hard to do, and even harder to recieve.

[Shizoku]

The acs program will be active again once we have really good commanders willing to take on more students. As it is right now we don't have very many active acs instructors, I'm busy at school and I still tutor blake and a few others on occasion. As it is right now, yes we are in a bit of a slump, if you have suggestions for getting the ACS program working better, I'm always willing to hear it.

Commanding is a lot more complex than anything else so it can't really be taught in a weekly program like cadet does. The forum is now open to all, anyone who asks a question, will get it answered. I've also stated:

[quote=""Shizy's Welcome post in the ACS forum""]A common misconception is that ACS is a program similar to @Cadet, while we are affiliated strongly with @Cadet now, we do not actualy run a program. If you are seeking private tutoring in commanding, trying pming someone you consider a good commander and ask them to show their stuff.[/quote]

Essentialy, I'm not going to go to you and set you up with someone. I tried doing that, it's difficult to work in two people's scheduals and other such needs. This way, the student who finds someone who plays during their time, can work with their instructor, instead of myself setting two people up who never actualy play together. You may call me lazy for deleting the middle man, but I see this as a lot easier for everyone.

[apathos]

QUOTE (Lindy_Hop @ Sep 14 2006, 01:22 PM) as for
[quote=""Dengaroth""]the only thing the "worse players" are doing wrong is not joining the stronger team.

Actually that is precisely what they are doing wrong. If everyone vet through noob was clamoring to get on the better team (and weren't cherry picked into a stack [which is a big proviso]) that would help game balance immensely. Imbal N/A has nothing to do with this.[/quote]

This may be great in theory, but will never happen in prictice. All it takes is one person calling the stack wrong, and it will throw this all out of whack. As soon as one side is the better team, then everyone will want to join that team.

That's why imbal N/A does have to do with this. If I as a 14 try to comm against a 15 (not a big difference), then "everyone...clamoring to get on the better team" means that it's only going to be 2 vs. 1. The only way people could join the game then is to set imbal to N/A.

[Lindy_Hop]

QUOTE (apathos @ Sep 14 2006, 06:57 PM) QUOTE Actually that is precisely what they are doing wrong. If everyone vet through noob was clamoring to get on the better team (and weren't cherry picked into a stack [which is a big proviso]) that would help game balance immensely. Imbal N/A has nothing to do with this.

This may be great in theory, but will never happen in prictice. All it takes is one person calling the stack wrong, and it will throw this all out of whack. As soon as one side is the better team, then everyone will want to join that team.

That's why imbal N/A does have to do with this. If I as a 14 try to comm against a 15 (not a big difference), then "everyone...clamoring to get on the better team" means that it's only going to be 2 vs. 1. The only way people could join the game then is to set imbal to N/A.
[/quote]


Do they not teach critical/logical thinking anymore? Why the hell does it follow that everyone wanting to be on the better team means that imbalance N/A should be turned on allowing everyone to be on the better team? There is no bloody reason to bring imbalance N/A into this.

It is also a logical fallacy that everyone wanting to be on the stronger team only leads to a stronger team. It only leads to a stronger team if only the strongest players make it on to the stronger team. If weak players fight for spots and get them, a strong team is diluted.

Heres annother fallacy, people should only join the team that is currently stronger. Lets take your example and further pretend that elo numbers have real meaning. A 14 coms against a 15. Annother 15 joins the current 15 making it a 14 on 30 game. Having a 17 join the 14 is a very real option because he is stronger than either 15 individually and collectively his team's 31 will be greater than the other team's 30.

Final fallacy, noone will join if teams are unbalanced if everyone wants to be on the stronger side. Bull#&$*. People will join because they want to play just as they do now. The only difference would be that instead of only weak and bored players joining the weaker side, only bored players would join the weaker side.

[apathos]

QUOTE (Lindy_Hop @ Sep 15 2006, 09:26 AM) Do they not teach critical/logical thinking anymore? Why the hell does it follow that everyone wanting to be on the better team means that imbalance N/A should be turned on allowing everyone to be on the better team? There is no bloody reason to bring imbalance N/A into this.

It does not follow. I was not actually advocating turning imbalance to N/A. I was only saying that imbalance would have to be set at N/A if we carry your argument out to its logical end based on the fact that there can only be 1 stronger team. If one team is stronger, and everyone tries to only join that team, then no one will join the weaker team, and the only way the game can grow is to turn N/A off so everyone can join the team that is known to be stronger. But that is obviously ridiculous and does not reflect reality. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but that is what you said.

QUOTE It is also a logical fallacy that everyone wanting to be on the stronger team only leads to a stronger team. It only leads to a stronger team if only the strongest players make it on to the stronger team. If weak players fight for spots and get them, a strong team is diluted.[/quote]Right, but in your argument here, there is no incentive to go to the weaker team, except boredom. So if everyone wants to be on the stronger team, no one will join the weaker team, unless they are unwilling to wait. Am I missing something here? I see no logical fallacy; I'm just trying to see the end of your argumentation. Or are you assuming that when a person is not able to join the stronger team, he defaults to the weaker team? If so, you never stated that. And before you say, "Well that should've been obvious", I'd just like to point out your constant use of the word everyone. (I'd also like to know how one "fights" for a spot on a team)

QUOTE Heres annother fallacy, people should only join the team that is currently stronger. Lets take your example and further pretend that elo numbers have real meaning. A 14 coms against a 15. Annother 15 joins the current 15 making it a 14 on 30 game. Having a 17 join the 14 is a very real option because he is stronger than either 15 individually and collectively his team's 31 will be greater than the other team's 30.[/quote]
But see, he makes either team the strongest team. If he comes to the game wanting to be on the strongest team (literally), then he will wait for a newb to join the weaker team with the open spot. Soon as he can, he will join the team that is already stronger. This is stacking, and this is exactly how most stacking in Allegiance happens. In your example, the 17 joining the weaker team is an example of anti-stacking, and is not the majority practice.

Furthermore, what if a 9 wants to join instead of the 17? If his desire is to join the strongest team (evaluated after he joined either team), he only has one choice, and he can't join that team.

QUOTE Final fallacy, noone will join if teams are unbalanced if everyone wants to be on the stronger side. Bull#&$*. People will join because they want to play just as they do now. The only difference would be that instead of only weak and bored players joining the weaker side, only bored players would join the weaker side.[/quote]
I have no argument with this, except that you keep saying everyone. If everyone wants to be on the stronger side (which does not reflect reality), then no one will join the weaker side. I am just taking your argument literally. If that is not how you meant it, then that is why this continues. You never said anything about people wanting to play more than being on the strongest team. And if you think about trying to light me on fire as in, "why are they here if they don't want to play?!?!", I would just like to point out the fact that we routinely have upwards of 15 people sitting on NOAT every night because they decided something was more important than playing, and for quite a few that something is being on the stronger team.

So if I missed something, I apologize. But the way I understood your argument makes as little sense to me as you accused me of.

[Lindy_Hop]

Fine I shall spell everything out as clearly as possible for your benefit.

Everyone should want to be on the stronger/better team... not the strongest/best team. Its a very subtle but very important difference. The latter leads to stacking and stagnation, the former is less stringent and leads to better balanced games.

Every player should ask themselves will my joining make the team I join the stronger team. If yes they should join, if no they should not. In our 14 vs a 14 and a 15 scenario that means that the 17 has a valid choice to join the sole 14 and thus join the stonger team. A 9 in comparison should stay in noat and not make things worse. A much more likely scenario, a 14 and a 2 vs a 15 a 15 and annother 15. A 9 should emphatically stay the hell in noat. Even a 17 should stay in noat unless he can line up annother decently good player to join with him, thus building a stronger team.

To once again make things very clear, everyone should want to be on the stronger team. If they can't be on the stronger team they should wait in noat. In no way or form is the logical conclusion to turn imbalance to N/A. The logical conclusion would be games with giant noat.

---

Now balance never needs to be turned to N/A because people will get bored and join weaker teams (and people will drop from stronger teams). If this were a random distribution of joiners things wouldn't be so bad. This was meant as a seperate argument aimed at your N/A nonsense and I am sorry I lumped it all together in my last post and confused you.

[mcwarren4]

QUOTE (NightRychune @ Sep 13 2006, 05:19 PM) I think that if a team wants to win, they'll win. Even though most people here don't show it, I bet that everyone who has played this game for at least 3-4 months has a rough idea of what they should do and how they can win. They just choose not to do it for whatever reason. Maybe they perceive a stack on the other team or don't even bother trying, maybe they want to fly in circles, I don't know. Really, if people put even a slight bit more effort into thinking about what they do when they're flying, the level of gameplay would go up by quite a bit.

Night's argument would be perfectly reasonable if pilot skill was equal across all pilots. I think even he understands that is not the case. Sure you can point to the few instances where better teamwork on the unstacked team beats a stacked team, but you can't base an argument off of those few instances.

The reason a team cannot beat a stacked team is because the collective skill of the stacked team exceeds that of the unstacked team. Its a team game but ultimately the game is broken down into smaller skirmishes which either you win or lose. Opening con sequence for instance. If both teams are IC, both cons arrive at the same sector, and there are an equal number of ints and nans guarding both cons, stacked team wins that skirmish 99% of the time. And so it goes skirmish after skirmish until the stacked team owns most of the map and has adv tech while the unstacked team holes up and eventually loses.

Really, I don't understand why you would make such an absurd statement.

[Dengaroth]

QUOTE (Lykourgos @ Sep 14 2006, 08:42 PM) Incidentally, what Night has done for the community is to command. On primetime, on the main server. Which is more than I can say about anyone else in this thread- except for myself.

So basically, you're saying Night did more for this community than BV did? Yeah, right.

Also, Lyko, you're working with the mistaken assumption that it takes two "great" comms (I will not go into debating the definition thereof now) to have a good game. If that were the case, your statement *might* hold true.

This, however, is not the case. All you need is two comms of comparable skill level. If "volunteering to command" directly works against this goal, it's not beneficial to the community, quite the opposite.

Like, for instance: Shiz vs. Vipur_r_us. Is Shiz doing something for the community by comming that game? Prolly not. Comming vs. Aarm and handing command to someone in Vipur's level both would do something for the community. Please note how the one option where he's both comming and doing something for the community involves another good comm stepping up as well.

You'd be surprised at the number of people willing to comm "if another mediocre comm steps up". Will the resulting games be SG-quality? Probably not.

Will they be better than Night vs (0)? You bet your ass.