Free Allegiance Forums

I blame ELO, before no-one gave a crap what happened at the end of the game... and ELO came along, then people started CARING if the game counted. you just doubled the stackers

nuke it, nuke ELO to all hell, and never even SPEAK of it again.

games dont count, no-one cares, stacks go down.

that is the problem, this is the solution.

notice, when games DONT count, we get better games? cause people dont want to hurt their oohhh so precious rank.

QUOTE And I can say it's the rare game that is lost because of individual player incompetence. That's total BS.[/quote]Are you playing allegiance? Bomber pilot flying full speed through aleph, someone off dogfightting when one more nan would kill a base, someone shooting a fighter instead of the almost dead miner or constructor, someone missing the ram of a con, someone dropping a tp2 into an assteriod causing it to explode, a nan following around a HTT with shields us, HTT with shields up...

QUOTE And frankly, it's also rare to have such a noob/voob commander that that is the reason a game is lost.[/quote]
Commander not buying CM2 or bombers vs tac, pushing cons without defense, not telling your team what to do, not sending miners to the nan, not telling people to defend miners 24/7, buying spec miners/he mines as opening strat, commander not buying a HTT for recap...

Pook wrote:So now, each team will have an equal amount of incompetence.

The incompetence would be equal, but the incompetence is still there, so there still will be frustration, and people still won't command, so people will still stack as much as possible.

Umm, I have commanded 6-94% games, so I can and do command and fly with people that are learning. It just isn't contiously fun dealling with incompetence every game, which is what happens and always WILL happen. So commanders take breaks from commanding even if they WIN, ELO BALANCE WILL NOT STOP THIS. They'll still take breaks, so there will be a lack of comms.

Most of the time I leave AA on so that newbies CAN play. At certain points of the day the games are dull for more experianced players, because everyone is just doing their own useless thing. Both teams need more vets than voob/noob for a great quality game. The balancing will drive vets away...

So, the teams will be "balanced," but there won't be enough quality vets there to make a good game.

In order to fix the stack you must first fix what your trying to fix the stack with

Please Fix ELO before trying to fix the stack using ELO. Eventually people will have 5k+ ELO scores which will basically mean they can't play, ever.

_SRM_PsycHosis wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_PsycHosis @ Jul 25 2006, 05:00 PM) notice, when games DONT count, we get better games? cause people dont want to hurt their oohhh so precious rank.

No never noticed that. Stacking on non-ELO servers is just as bad, which is to say, games are just as crappy. And if you're referring to games on ELO servers that don't count? You mean, like, the ones with a 94% to 6%? No, those are crappy too.

Freeza wrote:QUOTE (Freeza @ Jul 25 2006, 05:07 PM) Are you playing allegiance? Bomber pilot flying full speed through aleph, someone off dogfightting when one more nan would kill a base, someone shooting a fighter instead of the almost dead miner or constructor, someone missing the ram of a con, someone dropping a tp2 into an assteriod causing it to explode, a nan following around a HTT with shields us, HTT with shields up...
Commander not buying CM2 or bombers vs tac, pushing cons without defense, not telling your team what to do, not sending miners to the nan, not telling people to defend miners 24/7, buying spec miners/he mines as opening strat, commander not buying a HTT for recap...

Look, Freeza, I like your posts generally, so I'm not attacking you personally, but c'mon, even in squad games people f up, miss rams, forget to call out that a sector is probed. And I know you're not Allegiance's poster boy for the perfect pilot, so who cares if every person on a team isn't doing things perfectly. Who cares? Is that the reason you stack? Is your opinion of yourself that high that you think your skills eminently qualify you for membership on the stacked team?

Really, that's nonsense, as someone else said (I think Pook), teams are comprised of players who have a wide range of skills. You want perfection? Save it for your squad games. Otherwise, don't use that as an excuse for stacking. 'Cause the fact is, in one out of 20 games, even the stacked loses, so obviously there are some genuine f ups happening on that team. And I don't see you complaining that stacked teams aren't perfect, therefore you aren't going to fly for them.

Freeza wrote:QUOTE (Freeza @ Jul 25 2006, 05:07 PM) So, the teams will be "balanced," but there won't be enough quality vets there to make a good game.

[Edit: deleted the ending bracket by accident /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />]

I guess the way I feel about that is if 'vets' leave because they can't whore it up on stacked teams every time they log on, so what. They'll go elsewhere and be happy. And the people who stay with this game will be happy too.

Players don't have to be perfect, what I want is someone that is consistant. I want to know what to expect when that player joins my team. I do have minimum expectations from everyone, even (0)s. They are pretty much all that's in the academy and the main other one is: listening to the commander (expanded academy basics are mostly the rest). Some people (voobs/noobs, and much rarer vets) fall below those expectations in individual games. They go do their own useless thing, and I consider them incompetent. That unfulfilled expectation frustrates me as a commander and as a teammate, EVEN IF MY TEAM WINS.

QUOTE I guess the way I feel about that is if 'vets' leave because they can't whore it up on stacked teams every time they log on, so what. They'll go elsewhere and be happy. And the people who stay with this game will be happy too.[/quote]
Whether we like it or not, the game needs these "vet whores" because otherwise we'll just have a bunch of nans. So if they go, alleg won't die, but it'll be hurting. This is what I fear ELO balancing may do. It may not be the case, but I feel the risk is too much and this senate proposal must be stopped.

I agree that ELO hasn't significantly affected stacking, excepting a couple of individual pilots who are just nuts.

I suck at commanding. I would much rather be killing something the entire time. If I'm not killing something, then I'm thinking about killing something.

As commander, I love it when you can get 75% of your team to achieve one objective, very rarely will you fail if you can do that, 75%. You know how hard it is to get 75% of your team to do one objective?

Very hard. You're doing good to get 50% on a bomb run, htt whore run, galv run, you name it, you have to be a force of persuasion to get a response. If you're a "new" commander, no one is going to listen to you, at least not enough people will to get organized. Hopefully you have 1 veteran respected enough to organize for you. That is the only way stuff gets done. A commander cannot just buy @#(!. People seem to think that is all you need to do. Wrong.

Wrong wrong wrong.

You better be the field marshall. If you're not marshalling, you suck. Don't like the way I marshall? Too bad.

I realize I have deviated from the topic, but if you're not going to tell your team what to do and when, you may as well just stop commanding. It pisses people off when you have the edge, and you lose it because you achieved nothing with your advantage.

I am guilty of not marshalling, mostly due to not giving a damn, I try hard not to command when in that mindset. Usually what happens is I play a short game for somebody who could have done better, and then I'm like wtf, give it to me, after losing to retarded things. This is where I get angry, and it's unhealthy.

Commanding is hard, yo. I have provided a handy link that shows the complexity of commanding, with music.

Visualization of Commanding

...hehe, that's pretty good /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

Do you want better, more competitive games? If so, the balance teams button will result in much more entertaining, fun, and intense games. All the arguments against it are individuals that claim they won't be able to choose their commander or will have to wait to join. Noone is saying or can claim that the "even team" option will result in less enjoyable gameplay. Their arguments are solely centered around the I want to be able to do whatever I want whenever I want school of thought. The problem is they can't do that now. Why is the stacked team always up one or more? Because all the stackers want on one particular team, that's why. So they sit in Noat the entire time waiting for the comm to pick them out of the half a dozen people trying to join the stacked team.

The stacking mentality can be broken down into two main ideas: people that wish to join a particular comm that they know and trust(or don't want to join one they dislke) and people that know enough to know when one comm will never be able to field a team to compete and simply don't want to join a game that was already lost as soon as it launched. The new system is better for people in both camps though. Say Aarm is commanding against me. Under the current system the vast majority of people will try to join Aarm's team rather than mine and they will sit waiting for half the game. Under the new system, however, the people that simply won't join me because I won't be able to field a competitive team will now know that with even teams I at least have a shot of winning and may join me, particularly if I am the first team available. This frees up the people that simply want to play for Aarm because they don't like my particularly abrasive attitude, constant Duck and Serb taunting and severe body odor to join his team much more quickly. In short, everyone wins.