Battle area > Community

Double Teaming

<< < (15/27) > >>

shirii:

--- Quote from: Jai Hearts on April 20, 2016, 07:57:58 AM ---that just sounds the same as whats happening with subs now, with teammembers complaining that they want to play but there teams rather let the sub do it so there is no way to really stop em or from changing subs for one tb saying this new guy is a sub now but later said or we got our old sub back.

--- End quote ---

1) The subs can only play in the place of a main roster member who cannot play anymore. The team can't just let the sub play, and if they do, that's both against the suggested rules and a problem with the team itself if you ask me.
2) A sub is an honorary member. It's not as simple as just swapping out any normal member like that, and hopefully it wouldn't be the same. It's just a matter of trusting the other teams to not abuse the system; and if they abuse the system, you can just call off the tb or something along those lines. It's definitely not a perfect system and would need some work.

Kisaragi Zane:
you know all in all the thing i see the most in people who are pro multi teaming i see they say multi teaming helps give em growand if its taken away it does more harm.

>I'm pro-DOUBLE teaming because in the event that a team needs help or support, you have the option of lending a hand. That's always been my reason for being on an alternate team. My statement about it doing more harm than good is in terms of a team becoming isolated from the community, which has happened before. A team becoming isolated from the community leads to many conflicts instead of melding together as one community as what Mythos said in his previous post. Again, my only reason for being pro-double teaming is that allows the person to lend a hand to a struggling team.


as for the growing part, one of the things i always advice allot of people is try a new deck outside of tbs first because the way most teams plays team fights are not a place to test a deck since allot of teams only thing winning is fun. being the guy with the longest running team on here i see mostly vets multi team, the people that already grew already had there time. some join teams just to be in the chat to know what happens, so what you want someone on your team to watch you ? i have seen teams, teams like 3soh who barely got time train in there none multi teaming team and grow way to freaking strong. teams like FP who i looked up to because there focus is not tbs, but to improve train with one another communicate help each other. i myself am not in any of the team chats of any team but im rivals with em im friends and im growing with em because we bond we fight we rival we war, allot of these guys i cant say are the same as my team because each people each members is so unique so different that even those that need training we work together to help em we bond and help.

>It's also possible to grow and bond through double-teaming. If one team is fully structured and functional and yet another team isn't for whatever reason, you can assist that team, make new friends, rivals, etc etc. I was in the same predicament when I was on Divine Souls and Absolute Empire, I helped out Absolute Empire and and actually grew to like the members that I saw myself as a pillar of the team while all at the same time, I still loved being on Divine Souls and helping/assisting them whenever I could.

in the past i started thinking all of area is toxic because there wasnt this this bond i get from teams here, but once word kept getting around of my team being mentioned at places so far away from area people contacted me and i found teams that are so strong so amazing and so fun to fight.

>If you re-read my previous post, this thought of area being toxic is what I'm trying to prevent. Some teams are very isolated from the community and only see things from a very narrow perspective. If teams who aren't regularly involved with the community become more... involved with the community (assuming they want to.) then thoughts like that wouldn't even occur in the first place, unless you personally have issues against members of the community then I can't help you there.

bottom line is all these things you say multi team is good for, you dont need it to get em. thats just you saying you are scared your members wont stay with you, and if youre so scared they will leave then why keep em ?

>There was another point in time where a team was starting out but because I wasn't able to multi-team I had to leave in order to help out the new team. Again, personally, I believe double teaming should be allowed for an actual legitimate purpose such as (for the thousandth time: helping a struggling team: either via inactivity or just starting out. (which are my only reasons for multi-teaming). I personally believe if I didn't have to make the choice to leave a team to help a team, I'd be a bit happier being able to help both but I made my decision and have no regrets on it. And while I'm pro-double teaming, I do highly agree that it does conflict with the competitive scene because many people do not share my notion of letting other people play before them because they can play on another team, and do try to hog in TBs, yes that is a thing. I really think that double-teaming should be allowed if given a reason, if it's going to be that much of an issue. Again, I only double team to help out struggling teams, and there are others who do it to be with friends, and there is the other group who do it to get in as many team battles as possible. If you can weed out and separate those who actually benefiting more than just themselves from those who honestly just don't give a fuck and want to be loose-cannons, bluntly speaking, I'm sure this issue of double teaming can be minimized without having to ban it, ruining it for those who are actually trying to lend a hand with the teams.

shirii:

--- Quote from: Pcdroid on April 20, 2016, 07:59:47 AM ---What you just described is a mini nerf to multi teaming. It's literally the same thing. Also do you have any idea how much that thing can be exploited? If someone wants to break a team now he can exploit this sub rule and do it easily. As I said before its not an issue just for certain people who wanna be on double teams with friends, this is for the health of the Team system as a whole, you cannot expect a team system like that to survive for too long, and if it does the result will not be good.If people want a team with their friends they can make one in a healthy team system, not double team left and right. At this point in time the ban is the solution. No tweak to the rules can fix the issues at hand.

--- End quote ---

This is not the same thing as multi teaming. Let's set some definitions for the terms.

Double Teaming - to be on two teams at once

Multi Teaming - to be on multiple teams at once

This is double teaming, evidenced by my initial suggestion of having one main team and being able to sub for ONE team. You have to be ACCEPTED to be a sub as you would be a member, so someone can't just randomly waltz in with no explanation. If they're someone with malicious intent intending to 'break' a team, I just have a few problems with that.

How on earth is someone going to 'break' a team? Will they get it disqualified? Will they intentionally lose teambattles? Team's can't just magically become void, and if they attempt to intentionally lose teambattles they can easily be removed. You never seemed to elaborate on this point, so I have no idea what you mean by 'breaking' a team.

This isn't the same as multi teaming. A ban is jumping to extremes, and I will repeat this and stress this as MANY times as I am required to.

A simple, blanket "let's just pretend this never happened" ban will NOT fix this double teaming 'issue'.

Kisaragi Zane:
I think the issues with substitutes is that people ask while setting up a TB for a sub instead of saying "we can't TB today guys, we dont' have enough members". Back in the day (ooooyaaaa hipster lingo), if someone left due to an emergency, we counted that as a loss or we continued playing until someone came back and filled up the spot, that way it was still a team effort. Subs nowadays are very abused to where it's not even a 'team battle'. Just don't team battle the team if 50% of the players are not members on their team. (inb4 they join the team they're playing for as legitimate members thus multi-tea-OOOOOOOO) See how these things come full circle?

Hope:
Let me start with the main point, people respond to incentives.

Of course, an outright ban has no incentives for both members and leaders unless they support it. People get nothing from following it, and thus can ignore it completely (Think of the U.S Prohibition Era for those of you who know history). In which case that puts in question how this whole shenanigan will be enforced as mentioned before. Whatever the result here is, there are many other holes in our team battling system such as the lack of any system to mandate honest and consistent reporting, or any central power to organize teams at all. If we are to bring attention to a problem, then we should address the other issues at hand.

It is like beating a dead horse, but the hope that this can give an understanding that an outright ban is too much work, idealistic even. If a ban could fix the problem, then why not fix other problems as well and create the ideal system?

Well, because banning isn't actually a quick fix, and an ideal system is much harder to achieve. People aren't just going to listen to a central power in a small group like this.

Double Teaming is NOT killing the "community," we are pointing our fingers at an issue that would not be a problem should we have a larger player base.

Lets say we have a bag of 5 marbles with 1 red marble inside. The activity is that you pull out a random marble and throw it back in. You are very likely to constantly pull the red marble. That's because there's  not that many marbles. Increase the count to 10, now we have 1/10 chances. You're seeing this red marble less. Then you amp it up to 50, then even 100. At this point it reduces itself to a 1/100 chance, only a 1 percent chance to come across this same marble which you constantly crossed before, just because you increased the quantity of the pool.

The best solution to this is not going for a ban that forces people to act. People respond to incentives. Its not a big bang word with blurred lines and meanings like "bonds," and not any sort of vague assumption on why and what we do in teams. We are people, and we have individuality. This is apparent by how everyone brings in personal testimony more than anything else. Its all different, and in no way are any of them wrong. Trying to find a point of convergence and agreement from there just isn't going to happen.

We have to attract new members and encourage new members into entering our team battling scene. Now understand that not everyone is constantly involved in this. We have players who slip in and out, those who only see this as an occasional activity to unwind and play Vanguard. Whatever the case may be, we just need more people.

Think of the movie Cars, with Radiator Springs and how they needed to attract people as they were in danger, literally becoming wiped off the map. The solution there was to make the place more attractive and more welcoming, to open up more.

Give incentives for people and make them want to stay. That way we have a larger environment as a whole. With a growing environment, we can get an exponentially growing community once again as we did before.

...but with a rise comes a fall, and may we rise again as we did before.

Thank you for this post and thank you all as this has awakened a lot of those who have had dormant thoughts and opinions and has given the opportunity for them to be expressed.

An action which brings people here and draws out their passions, is in itself a reason to be here.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page