Participation

[Jam Cliché]

I think it's a very interesting idea Houdini is presenting here. I actually recommended rankings when I first arrived in FC and was promptly blasted by Anarchy and Jam. It would make it more fair too. He's absolutely right. Legacy played 6 games and Sparta played 9, but for some reason VBD only played 4, doesn't seem too fair in my eyes. Why don't I put it in different terms for you Blues. Last war you bitched about playing VBD so much. What if REDD only had 3 squads; VBD, Vanquish, and Second Nature? You guys would have 1 or 2 wins every single night because our strongest teams would play more games. This is how it is now for REDD. Heck, REDWATCH fields almost as many people as all of Blue. Numbers do mean something, so we should do something like, every ten extra people an army has on and fighting, you get an extra 500 credits. And while there might not be rankings right now, there are still rankings in everyone's mind. If I were to name two units in either army, you guys would know who's the stronger team. This will keep teams from being blown out in CTF by 10 captures or getting their score tripled in conflict regularly. This could promote growth in our community and also keep stacked teams from making such a huge difference, we know how there's been issues with that.

I don't recall blasting anyone. I don't even think I said more than a few words about ranking Squads.

[Anarchy]

[KazuhLLL]

I think it's a very interesting idea Houdini is presenting here. I actually recommended rankings when I first arrived in FC and was promptly blasted by Anarchy and Jam. It would make it more fair too. He's absolutely right.

A ranking system would indeed make it more fair. But unfortunately, unlike an MLG/ALG Tournament, we cant know which squads are going to show up, and in what numbers. Not until about 5:50 do you get an accurate picture of who's on, so there'd be no way of setting up a perfectly fair "bracket" beforehand. It would have do be done at ~5:50, and doing so would likely bleed into the BN time, and with wait times being a big complaint already I don't think they need to be made any worse.

Don't get me wrong, I would love having a ranking system, because it would make matches more competitive. And for me, competitive = fun. However, nobody likes to be the fat kid in gym class. While I'm sure the "better" 50% of squads would be content with their rank, I think that more than a few in the "lower" half would be upset about it. It could open the door to many more problems. (Ex. Recruits might not like to find out that they've been placed in the "worst" squad, and they might either complain or quit FC altogether.)

Legacy played 6 games and Sparta played 9, but for some reason VBD only played 4, doesn't seem too fair in my eyes.

Those numbers would seem unfair, but they're not the whole story. VbD only had enough members for one team on Strongside and one team on The Pit. Legacy had enough members for one on Strongside, and two on The Pit. And Sparta had enough members for two on Strongside and three on The Pit. Now those numbers don't look so disproportionate, do they? Us BLUEs can play the numbers game too, you know.

Why don't I put it in different terms for you Blues. Last war you bitched about playing VBD so much. What if REDD only had 3 squads; VBD, Vanquish, and Second Nature? You guys would have 1 or 2 wins every single night because our strongest teams would play more games. This is how it is now for REDD.

First off, your estimate on BLUE's potential wins in such a situation is extremely conservative. We had two wins just last night against those squads (LLEEEGGGAAACCCYYYY), and they accounted for "only" 14 of the 34 matches played. Had they been 34/34, we would've easily gotten 5 or 6 at least, I think. Now sure, that's still not a lot of wins, but the situation itself is completely hypothetical. Despite what you claim, it is not how it is for REDD. Like I said above, VbD/Vanquish/Second Nature accounted for 14 out of 34 games. Legacy/Sparta accounted for 15 out of 34, and they only accounted for so many because Sparta is a whole Company, not a Squad.

Heck, REDWATCH fields almost as many people as all of Blue. Numbers do mean something, so we should do something like, every ten extra people an army has on and fighting, you get an extra 500 credits.

If by "almost as many" you mean "about a third as many", then you would be correct. If not, then you would be over-exaggeration big time. That being said, numbers do indeed mean something. However, the size of each army is very dynamic, as it has always been. Like others have pointed out, REDD was lower on numbers just as recently as the Beta War and part of last war. I'd venture to say that in the grand scheme of things, the size of each army always levels out. If I'm not going too far into the realm of hypothetical-ness you could also say that, by extension, the bonuses for having additional troops would level out over time as well. This means that the bonuses, on the whole, would end up being useless. And the only thing they would accomplish is in the short term by kicking an army while they're down.

And while there might not be rankings right now, there are still rankings in everyone's mind. If I were to name two units in either army, you guys would know who's the stronger team. This will keep teams from being blown out in CTF by 10 captures or getting their score tripled in conflict regularly.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my mind the "ranks" get very muddled after choosing only the top 3 or 4 squads from all of FC. And the only squad I've ever seen triple another's score in Conflict is VbD. And as far as CTF goes, VbD is also the only team I've seen win by 10 caps. Sparta got close last night winning by 8, but still, I wouldn't classify either occurrence as being "regular".

This could promote growth in our community and also keep stacked teams from making such a huge difference, we know how there's been issues with that.

There has indeed been issues with that, from both sides. However, since I returned last October, the only side that's had that issue is REDD, in the form of VbD. That isn't a slight to them, I understand wanting to play with others of your skill level, but it's the truth. Whenever there's in important game that both sides need to win, like a tiebreaker, it's not "VbD vs Sparta", or "VbD vs Cyberdyne", or "VbD vs Blue Phoenix", or even "VbD vs Legacy". It's always "VbD vs BLUE Mix". Because although REDD has a permanently 'stacked' team, BLUE makes a 'stacked' team by taking players from 3, sometimes even 4 squads. (Again, no offense to you guys in VbD. I think it's inevitable that skilled players will gather into one squad in one army or another, but I was just making a point.) All I'm trying to say is that you can't pull the "stacked!" card on us when you guys have the only one in the deck.


If anyone chooses to comment on any of my counters, all I ask is that you do so respectfully, so that we can have a productive conversation out of it. I tried to keep an even tone throughout my wall-o'-text, and apart from one particular line of sarcasm I think I've succeeded. However everyone is entitled to their opinion, so if you want to call me an obsolete dingbat I suppose you're entitled to that as well.

EDIT: Well as this topic was just closed it would seem that nobody will be able to respond to my rhetoric. Oh well. C'est la vie.

[VerbotenDonkey]

Personally, I don't see the point in closing this topic (as in, people are bringing some actual ideas that I think we can look at in the future and everyone is being respectful about it) and it's the only way that new ideas will come into being is through discussions like these. But alas.

[PhoenixPrime(GEN)]

Meh, I'll keep this topic open for now, but keep it respectful folks.




Personally, I don't see the point in making these bonuses. You didn't see Blue gunning for REDD when REDD was down the past two wars in member base. We had Blue's waiting in lobbies for over an hour, just to get into a single game, and that game might have been the only game they played that night, but we never called for sanctions against REDD for having a bad turnout. Not once. Were we frustrated? Yes. Were we a bit bitter toward REDD for having such bad turnouts? Yes. Did we penalize REDD for doing so? No.



But we have one or two nights of bad turnouts and everyone wants to create bonuses for REDD? That seems a bit... slanted.




If you guys really want to do your part for your army on these turnouts, then why not try and help Blue out in the Universal Bootcamps that we have in this community now? I know for a fact they've sent a lot of folks to REDD, but why not do the community a solid and send a few our way as well?

In the past, when armies were massively inbalanced, we had whole units leave one army to help the other (Most of the time, in fact, it was REDD who had the lackluster numbers and Blue donated whole squads to even the playing field)


I'm not calling for that sort of action now, at all. What I am calling for is that, while the armies are inbalanced, for REDD not to seek to gain an advantage over my army while it's down. Doesn't really seem all that fair, to be honest.