Free Allegiance Forums

Thanks Quack, I try to antistack as much as I can but yet I cannot possibly support these actions. Stacking is, of course, a problem, but if I were to stop commanding it would not be my reason for doing so, it'd actually be "My Team Sucking". No, not the enemy team having better players, but my otherwise very solid team not being able to pull it out when we have clear objectives and the tech to carry them out.

Frag's reply illustrates a problem I and I'm thinking similar minded (read: competitive) people have.

Fragtzack wrote:QUOTE (Fragtzack @ Mar 24 2008, 03:08 AM) Admins, don't cave in to the whinners. For every stacking vet that leaves this community over this issue, we will get x2 noobs who actually decides to stick around this community. Stacking vets is the #1 reason by far that noobs do not stick around Allegiance.

Exactly. If a bunch of vets leave the game and twice as many noobs join, what on Earth do you think it will do to the quality of PUGs? Sometimes, you want to unwind and have fun, but also want to have a challenge but yet don't want to use SG levels of skill. Competitive PUGs are probably the most played types of games and are the games played during US primetime. Soon, no vet will want to play PUGs because everyone is uncompetitive and just there to do whatever, sticking to SGs only. And if the vast majority of players are casual gamers just looking to join a team and do whatever they want, where do squads recruit from? Why would new players bother taking CDT or ACS if they're just there to play the game and have no interest whatsoever in actually being skillful at it? Because that's what outlawing stacking means. Everyone will be at a mediocre level of skill. All the old stackers will be replaced by the antistackers who are the only skilled players left in the game because everyone else left in disgust/anger.

And the cycle continues.

In short: Stackers leaving means current antistackers become stackers due to a huge skill imbalance in the community. Remember, you have to have skill to stack in the first place, and skill to antistack.

I still say "meh" on the whole thing. I think its an absolutely silly idea, and I forsee a hidden political agenda.

First they dissolved the senate and the first BANSTICK nearly destroyed XT.

Now they have returned with a nearly completed banstick, and we must launch an all out desperate assault, first on the alleg servers to lower the shields, and then with a fleet of DDOSers' to fly inside the banstick and blow up the core

The "rebels" were not freedom fighters, they were terrorists; they spread fear and annihilation. Rebel scum.

#7 of the RoC: You will follow the instructions of authorized personnel while in Free Allegiance or the official Free Allegiance forums.

In all fairness, he even said it to "all" that he was gonna do something if he saw another person "stack". Tread lightly in the tigers den when the beast has a thorn in its paw. Or something /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

OMG stop your whining!

This isn't your game, or your community, its theirs, that point has been stated and made clear. Play by whatever guidelines they have or don't play. If they want to ban someone for whatever reason, you'll live by it. plain and simple.

If it comes down to the admins doing whatever the hell they want, I wish to post my dissent. Heed it as you will:

I, as an antistacker, cannot support this new policy because I enjoy a competitive atmosphere to my games, and consider a great many stackers skilled pilots and friends. I derive enjoyment from joining a team down on skill and helping it fight against the stack because I like challenges when I play games. I also think the administration should not tell the playerbase how to play the game and what teams to join and instead administrate according to a set of rules that involves basic netiquette and behavioural protocols instead of trying to change games into what they think they should be like.

I also would detest it if an even greater proportion of the community were noobs who are not interested in skill and competition.

I would beg the administration to reconsider this new policy and actually play more so they can have a better idea of what games are actually like (hint: not 9/2.5 Imbal N/A cheesefests), and to implement a mandatory autobalancing system (along with a more accurate ranking system) instead of banning who they percieve to be stackers if they really wish to curb stacking.

Crono.

Still, banning someone for months at a time for something I have seen EVERY SINGLE ADMIN DO is just... awesome. I love it.

Do it more. Please.

ogorass wrote:QUOTE (ogorass @ Mar 23 2008, 05:26 AM) Wrong. All MS did was releasing the source code for the game. Those 'few people with power' are the guys paying for the servers you play on, the lobby server and those forums (Thalgor owns FAO forums and the lobby server). TE and BV have taken over the reign after Thalgor and Pook retired and appointed those two for the leadership positions. That gives them all the right in the world to do whatever they feel like to the boards and servers they own.

Wrong. TE and BV regulate other people's servers, not their own. They host a MATCHMAKING service, not game servers. Their job is ONLY to uphold the rules, not invent new ones.

TheVoid37 wrote:QUOTE (TheVoid37 @ Mar 23 2008, 12:41 PM) OMG stop your whining!

This isn't your game, or your community, its theirs, that point has been stated and made clear. Play by whatever guidelines they have or don't play. If they want to ban someone for whatever reason, you'll live by it. plain and simple.

I disagree. I've been in this community just as long as TE and BV, as have many many others. The community doesn't BELONG to anyone. This is Microsoft's game, which they have graciously given us the reigns to; Us, as a collective, as a community. Not to any two people. It is not their community, they are members of it, just like us.

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Mar 23 2008, 10:21 AM) Frag's reply illustrates a problem I and I'm thinking similar minded (read: competitive) people have.
Exactly. If a bunch of vets leave the game and twice as many noobs join, what on Earth do you think it will do to the quality of PUGs? Sometimes, you want to unwind and have fun, but also want to have a challenge but yet don't want to use SG levels of skill. Competitive PUGs are probably the most played types of games and are the games played during US primetime. Soon, no vet will want to play PUGs because everyone is uncompetitive and just there to do whatever, sticking to SGs only. And if the vast majority of players are casual gamers just looking to join a team and do whatever they want, where do squads recruit from? Why would new players bother taking CDT or ACS if they're just there to play the game and have no interest whatsoever in actually being skillful at it? Because that's what outlawing stacking means. Everyone will be at a mediocre level of skill. All the old stackers will be replaced by the antistackers who are the only skilled players left in the game because everyone else left in disgust/anger.

Interesting, but I disagree. Being stacked on is not the only factor influencing rookies to improve. There is respect, the desire for skill improvement, the desire to participate in squads, and the desire not to embarrass one's self. I also think we lose more vets due to stacking than we would to an absence of stacking opportunities.

I think the crux of the disagreement is thus: what does one do when one does not wish to play for one of the teams in the only viable game? In my opinion, stacking one team is simply not acceptable under any circumstances.

Grimmwolf_GB wrote:QUOTE (Grimmwolf_GB @ Mar 23 2008, 10:28 AM) The "rebels" were not freedom fighters, they were terrorists; they spread fear and annihilation. Rebel scum.

Yeah, damn Americans.