Desperate times

Archangelus · Post by **Archangelus** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:51 pm

Unfortunately I agree with masta.

Unless you have some very serious temporary reason for not showing up, you should get removed.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:55 pm

it is enough that you can lose every single game and still remain a squad
but you have to actually be able/willing to show up and lose
it's not a hefty requirement

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:45 pm

This isn't about individual squads. It's actually stupid to ask squads to disband or merge, and like it's actually an unintelligent thing to say. Squads typically aren't failing because of something inherent in the squad, they're failing because Allegiance is failing.

If you still want to play competitive games of Allegiance, don't look to the existing squad system, there aren't enough players to support a competitive squad scene.

If someone can introduce a new system which ignores existing squads and creates balanced teams of active players who play together across multiple games in a league, then you can have competitive games, but it might be too little too late.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:18 pm

You kids and your team balance ideas
squads are for squad games
play or lose your squad

qqmwoarplox · Post by **qqmwoarplox** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:40 pm

who cares what people who dont play think anyways

Elzam_ · Post by **Elzam_** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:58 pm

qqqqqq wrote:QUOTE (qqqqqq @ Aug 12 2012, 05:40 PM) who cares what people who dont play think anyways

Actually, if you think about it...

The people that play are diehard and probably wouldn't quit even if the internet went down.
The people that don't play, don't play for a reason. If you want player base to increase, you would want to cater to those that don't play over those that play.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:12 am

Elzam V. Branstein wrote:QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Aug 12 2012, 04:58 PM) Actually, if you think about it...

The people that play are diehard and probably wouldn't quit even if the internet went down.
The people that don't play, don't play for a reason. If you want player base to increase, you would want to cater to those that don't play over those that play.

No.
and even the diehard don't play anymore.

Post by **Papsmear** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:32 am

A few die hards still play.

I disagreee Onion, you, like everyone else joined a squad for a reason....that reason was as a "team" to be the best your group could be. And for a while PK was unbeatable....but then XT came along and SysX, RT, etc.
We play high end squad games for a reason, they blow pick up games away when a whole squad plays as a unit.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:41 am

You're simply incorrect.. and I think that's pretty obvious by the state of things.

QUOTE We play high end squad games for a reason, they blow pick up games away when a whole squad plays as a unit.[/quote]

I agree that squad games used to be higher quality than pickup games, this is not being disputed.. I'm saying that these days you can't depend on squads to produce high quality games. Something new is needed.

Metz's recent actions actually support my argument. He started a new squad and got a bunch of active players together. Now imagine if that was replicated x4, 4 new teams; they pick players from a pool of active players who sign up, and stay together in a competitive league.

I'm not saying it can work anymore (I believe it's already too late), but it would be the hypothetical ideal way to have competitive games.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:08 am

squad games and PuGs are mostly the same right now since nobody plays together enough to work well together as a squad

all it takes is 1 person in a squad to drive that squad into activity
all it takes is 2 decent comms to turn everything around, really
I'll probably start committing some time in the next couple weeks