Battle area > Community
Double Teaming
Kisaragi Zane:
--- Quote from: Jai Hearts on April 20, 2016, 10:29:17 AM ---wow allot of my convos are missing form that just pieces. but you yourself almost every team you where on or is on are ether dissbanded or inactive minus NR and TA who do share some members right ? you say double teaming works but your past is a good example of why it has more cons then pro.
you could go to one stop because it has cheaper products but in the end if the gas youre burning costs you more then the stop thats just a few steps from your house is it worth it. or maybe you dont know that youre basically burning the same ammount of gas ?
--- End quote ---
I only kept the parts of the conversation that I wanted to touch upon. It's nothing personal. Also my teams disbanding are not the result of multi or even double teaming. They were disbanded due to internal disputes or inactivity (as in no one was around to participate in team activities due to personal life). I would like to further mention: Rising Eclipse/Ragnarok Storm did not allow multi-teaming at any point whatsoever. Neither did Cosmic Origins. Absolute Empire only allowed double-teaming with a legitimate purpose. Night Raid is the first team I've made that has allowed double-teaming to prevent any conflicts. If you want to ask about Divine Souls or Sanctuary Alliance, you're better off asking Nova, Mythos or NeoBuster. And I believe I should mention that Crescent Moon (A team that I was on before joining Team Asteroid) was disbanded because the leader had real life obligations that she needed to fulfill, also this team did not allow double teaming. In short, none of these teams disbanded as a result of multi/double teaming: for most did not allow it. Thank you very much~
Jai Hearts:
--- Quote from: Zane Kisaragi on April 20, 2016, 10:33:05 AM ---
--- Quote from: Jai Hearts on April 20, 2016, 10:29:17 AM ---wow allot of my convos are missing form that just pieces. but you yourself almost every team you where on or is on are ether dissbanded or inactive minus NR and TA who do share some members right ? you say double teaming works but your past is a good example of why it has more cons then pro.
you could go to one stop because it has cheaper products but in the end if the gas youre burning costs you more then the stop thats just a few steps from your house is it worth it. or maybe you dont know that youre basically burning the same ammount of gas ?
--- End quote ---
I only kept the parts of the conversation that I wanted to touch upon. It's nothing personal. Also my teams disbanding are not the result of multi or even double teaming. They were disbanded due to internal disputes or inactivity (as in no one was around to participate in team activities due to personal life).
--- End quote ---
still most of us know for a fact some came over multi team. and if people cant tb then why be on a team or lead one if they cant be active ? i say let someone that is more active get a chance to lead to grow. you cant single handedly hold a team together without work without help. the reason some teams live so long some teams are so amazing is because they do the work.
youre speaking pro of multi teams but you ignore the negative how so many of those teams you love dissbanded via problems i will not state here, but mutli team played a role. even you yourself made RS by leaving AE DS and what ever other team you where on to form it with those members that followed you. and stated that they are not allowed to be on other teams. so for a time even you agreed there was a problem with multi team, am i wrong ? ofcourse its easier but there will always be struggles and not everyone can be a leader of a team. if you want to help a team grow then you dont automatically need to be a leader to do this (wow im gonna probably stop talking soon since im repeating myself again) you can just be a member be a fighter grow in the team and people and learn form others. we cant just ignore what doesnt convenience because we dont wanna be proven wrong, or we are just sticking to a one narrow mind set.
Kisaragi Zane:
--- Quote from: Jai Hearts on April 20, 2016, 10:42:13 AM ---still most of us know for a fact some came over multi team. and if people cant tb then why be on a team or lead one if they cant be active ? i say let someone that is more active get a chance to lead to grow. you cant single handedly hold a team together without work without help. the reason some teams live so long some teams are so amazing is because they do the work.
youre speaking pro of multi teams but you ignore the negative how so many of those teams you love dissbanded via problems i will not state here, but mutli team played a role. even you yourself made RS by leaving AE DS and what ever other team you where on to form it with those members that followed you. and stated that they are not allowed to be on other teams. so for a time even you agreed there was a problem with multi team, am i wrong ? ofcourse its easier but there will always be struggles and not everyone can be a leader of a team. if you want to help a team grow then you dont automatically need to be a leader to do this (wow im gonna probably stop talking soon since im repeating myself again) you can just be a member be a fighter grow in the team and people and learn form others. we cant just ignore what doesnt convenience because we dont wanna be proven wrong, or we are just sticking to a one narrow mind set.
--- End quote ---
For the last time, multi-teaming did not play a role in any of those teams disbanding. Ragnarok Storm didn't allow double teaming for the reason that we all aimed to be committed to the team. Multi/Double Teaming wasn't a problem. We very much could've allowed it but we didn't. So yes, you are wrong. The only one who is sticking to a narrow mindset is you by assuming the reason teams disbanded was a result of double/multi teaming. I can list each and every reason in full detail as to why each team disbanded or went inactive, none of those were a result of multi/double teaming. Also if you're repeating yourself over and over again, that's just you. As I've said, I'm merely stating my experience, my beliefs, and that I understand and comprehend and respect why people would be against it and why or how it may be 'killing' CFA in more ways than one.
Pcdroid:
@Hope
"All that's necessary is compromise now that we have pinpointed the problem. Compromise on the double teaming bad is not possible, seeing as how this thread has been going, but we all seem to agree on one thing.
Our community needs to grow again."
Allow me to start with this because this is the first thing we actually have to address. I believe you are already aware that this post is a poll right? and a poll about whether double teaming should be banned nonetheless.
Now let's check out the results so far:
54 total votes
26 in favor of the ban
10 against it
18 say that it at least needs to be limited in some way
now what does that show us? does it seem that people cant agree on the ban? because the poll results say the opposite. 48.2% of the voters (which is about half and the majority) want to implement a ban on double teaming specifically and 33.3% more want it to be at least limited in some shape or form. Only 18.5% of the voters believe there are no problems with it. In other words 81.5 percent of us actually agree that there is something wrong with double teaming in general, therefore a ban isnt as far fetched as you make it to be and something has to be done about double teaming.
"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."
"A ban gives leader 0 incentives to actually follow it. Being forced is not an incentive. As Spider mentioned as well, Implementation and Enforcement is a problem."
A ban is far from an idealistic approach to things, in fact a ban is the easiest solution to the problem, and also, a Ban is something you force people to do which is far from idealistic, if the majority of the voters request a ban, then the mods have to implement it in some way shape or form at least to the places where area is concerned (tbs, forums, the game itself) if the mods cannot implement a ban requested by the community then they are doing something wrong.
Restrictions are needed to build a solid community, if you think a ban is far fetched then you sir are either an idealist who thinks he can resolve things without consequences or your deliberately trying to build something chaotic.
"All it takes is recognizing the problem. Now that the problem is recognized, while we cannot come to an agreement on one thing, which is the ban, we may be able to find an agreement in getting new members in. So far there hasn't seemed to be any argument in actually getting new members into this "community.""
But you are seeing the problem from one side only. Building up the community depends on a lot of parameters, and banning double teaming is a big step to the fixing of that problem. However we are not talking about that certain problem right now, we are talking about Double teaming specifically and the poll clearly shows that its a problem, if you choose to disregard that fact then you simply don't care enough about what the community has to say.
Beryl:
If you were to ban double teaming at the moment, if we're to take into account the current situation, you would greatly reduce the number of teams running around, which is a double-edged sword. Sure, you prevent the problem of people being able to cover multiple spots in a team battle, but you also then force rosters of sister teams back onto the original roster, or whatever is deemed the original roster, which will greatly bloat their size and make it really hard to set up team battles of reasonable size with ease. That might seem like a bit of an odd complaint, because leaders tend to interact and call the shots on what's happening, but certain teams lacking roster caps is another thing that could easily become as much of a problem as this vaguely claims to be.
I'm not against the idea of restricting double teaming, because I can see the argument of our community being a bit more tight-knit. I don't think people should be able to claim a position on 4-5 teams that are essentially sister teams of the same team; that's caused problems in actual sports and esports before, let alone our casual system. But because this community also has a hard time reaching out to other people (I saw an argument earlier asking why we didn't reach out to people on Map 1 of Area and I laughed, really hard), it's hard to get new blood interested in this community. People also overlook the fact that, myself included, this place gets into a lot of pointless drama. If people don't want to be a part of pointless drama, why would they bother coming over here and interacting to some degree? They just want to play the game.
Essentially, I think the real problem is that you want to freshen up how team battling feels as an experience and are assuming this is the problem that holds it back, when in reality we're rather clique-y and to abolish this entirely would possibly make things even worse. If anything, what you might consider doing is trying to be creative with how team battles go. If it's competitive every time, of course it's going to get boring. Go for fun fights.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version