Page 6 of 17
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:36 pm
by Dorjan
Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Jan 30 2012, 11:18 PM) I've had some fun moments over the years with RT on games that we knew were lost. It's times like that the camaraderie of the squad comes together. Things like trying an insane tt run that had 0% of success but it was fun trying anyway, or singing the imperial march as we watch the enemy wtfpwnbattlecruisership come to our last base, or even just boosting around in a light int with 5 heavies chasing me, cackling like a madman.
I think XT resign against RT routinely cos they think it annoys us. Apart from that, and the 3h40 game which was resigned as people had lives to go to, and the 9min resign I can't remember many resigns. It's about honour imo, and is one of the things that make SG's different to PUG's. Also as part of that honour I never see winning teams messing about excessively (grav taking a while to end it doesn't count, he's just insanely cautious & we all do shout at him when he deserves it
).
Wow, that was the most idiotic thing I've read in this thread so far. Gandalf. You wouldn't have resigned even if you could. So derp, it has no relevance here at all.
Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Jan 30 2012, 11:18 PM) Brilliantly put
So you think people would do that? Even though currently they show up and still try? Even though as IC we lost our opening op vs RT last night which allowed you guys to strip mine but we still put up a fight and had a "chance" for a while?
You think we would've resigned after our opening op was killed?
I didn't realise you were so easy to give up Gandalf.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:38 pm
by Elzam_
In all honesty, the squads that are quick to give up probably aren't worth playing against anyway.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:39 pm
by Dorjan
Elzam V. Branstein wrote:QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Jan 30 2012, 11:38 PM) In all honesty, the squads that are quick to give up probably aren't worth playing against anyway.
Exactly.
So you would stop playing anyone who resigned after 9 mins or at a point which wasn't worthy...
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:41 pm
by fuzzylunkin1
Elzam V. Branstein wrote:QUOTE (Elzam V. Branstein @ Jan 30 2012, 06:38 PM) In all honesty, the squads that are quick to give up probably aren't worth playing against anyway.
No one is arguing for squads that are quick to give up. It's about resigning after you feel nothing more can be done. All squads have different mentalities to this, and to say "fight until the end for honor and glory" is not universal. Some people do have lives, and don't want to drag on longer than they have to.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:52 pm
by Sindertone
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 06:23 PM) The one thing people like you are incapable of understanding is that just because the other team has 3 adv techs and you have nothing but a garrison doesn't mean the game is over; Nine times out of ten it means the game has just began.
Nine times out of ten the game is over. Fact. Because Grav only commands one out of ten games.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:53 pm
by RHINO_Mk_II
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 07:23 PM) I was cutting you some slack because I like you but now you are being $#@!ing idiotic. Who decides what or what is not a definite loss? If you don't say me then you have no legs to stand on because most games are winnable through the right combination of skill, luck, and elbow grease.
The one thing people like you are incapable of understanding is that just because the other team has 3 adv techs and you have nothing but a garrison doesn't mean the game is over; Nine times out of ten it means the game has just began.
You are advocating for a path that will keep people from realizing this.
Perhaps next SysX vs RT game should start by letting RT mine and deploy 3 adv. techbases before SysX is allowed to launch.
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:55 pm
by spideycw
Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 30 2012, 06:33 PM) Mostly agree with you, the _team_ decides though. An example I can think of would be a two hour match where both teams are exhausted. One team finally takes the main tech base of the other team who have ran out of funds and have no active miners. That was the best fight of the game everyone is like *sigh* that was amazing. But now no one has the energy to keep on fighting, it was a good run, we might be able to continue but real life needs to happen now. GG. End of match #Resign.
Everyone will remember the match for the battle and intense gameplay up until that point and not the dragged out end game that could happen.
Again you're not reading, I said I would never resign myself. I'm just pointing out this is the only game where #resign is frown upon in situations like the above.
No I'm not at all, if you think everyone would exercise this at every point then you'd be sadly mistaken but a lot of players stop playing SGs due to the issues of not being able to start on time and the games lasting forever.
Maybe, but a poll would just be yes no and not people discussing it, since there is no rule here just a common bond.
If teams were smart enough to be able to make a decision then they wouldn't need me.
The hypothetical game you describe sound like a pickup game - not a squad game. If a squad game is going on for two hours with nothing happening then I would say that is their fault for sucking.
Allegiance squad game resignations are frowned upon because unlike other games we play squad games solely to have a higher level of play. Not for lots of other reasons other games have competitive matchups such as $$$ (I have heard MrC plans to finance the next squad tournament though)
The majority of squad games hardly last "forever" so I am curious what the problem is. If you have one game that lasts two hours in and one team should have resigned at 9 minutes - both teams suck equally and deserve it imo. That never happens though. If you have a game that goes on for 2 hours and is half decent you should count your $#@!ing blessings in this day in age that you are having a fun game instead of saying "we should resign because were rabbit stew and will lose in 4 hours)
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:56 pm
by spideycw
Sindertone wrote:QUOTE (Sindertone @ Jan 30 2012, 06:52 PM) Nine times out of ten the game is over. Fact. Because Grav only commands one out of ten games.
Grav is not a come from behind comm. Grav is the guy who is in a position of dominance for 2 hours then $#@!s up horribly.
I am the guy who shows up an hour into a game and carries the team to victory over some muppet like your precious perma voob comm.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:00 am
by spideycw
Dorjan wrote:QUOTE (Dorjan @ Jan 30 2012, 06:36 PM) So you think people would do that? Even though currently they show up and still try? Even though as IC we lost our opening op vs RT last night which allowed you guys to strip mine but we still put up a fight and had a "chance" for a while?
You think we would've resigned after our opening op was killed?
I didn't realise you were so easy to give up Gandalf.
With spineless cowards like you claiming you would "never resign personally" but making topics like this show your true colors Gandalf is far closer to the truth than you.
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:02 am
by Dorjan
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 11:55 PM) The hypothetical game you describe sound like a pickup game - not a squad game. If a squad game is going on for two hours with nothing happening then I would say that is their fault for sucking.
Again you didn't read dude. The 2 hours was amazing... derp.
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 11:55 PM) Allegiance squad game resignations are frowned upon because unlike other games we play squad games solely to have a higher level of play. Not for lots of other reasons other games have competitive matchups such as $$$ (I have heard MrC plans to finance the next squad tournament though)
Hardly. Most other games have smarter pro players.
spideycw wrote:QUOTE (spideycw @ Jan 30 2012, 11:55 PM) The majority of squad games hardly last "forever" so I am curious what the problem is. If you have one game that lasts two hours in and one team should have resigned at 9 minutes - both teams suck equally and deserve it imo. That never happens though. If you have a game that goes on for 2 hours and is half decent you should count your $#@!ing blessings in this day in age that you are having a fun game instead of saying "we should resign because were rabbit stew and will lose in 4 hours)
You're not following this thread, you're not making points about what we're talking about. Even my example which states things as clear as day you mis-read so I give up talking to you today spidey. Seriously dude, at first I started just provoking trying to get both sides of the story out but now you're just plain being silly.
If the game is exhausting and people have had their fill. There is a clear leader at a point a major event happens. Ending on the high instead of trying to make the war last another hour should be allowed (not EXPECTED). These are _RARE_ events I'm talking about but they can happen.