:: Community ::
ForumsMessagesGroupsChat (1)Friends
 

Forums :: Galcon Fusion :: Strategy :: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams)

You must sign in to post.

Page 1 / 2 1   2 

Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 9:13am

Cabin Boy fathomme

Joined: May 17, 2010
Posts: 24

I'm starting this thread following a debate with madshi and others in game. 

Firstly, what I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with having a neutral player in teams if there is an odd number of players, and that neutral does not "suck". (The issue of games counting to rank not withstanding, because lets face it who plays a makeshift game of teams and expects to work the way up to GA in it anyway?) 

Secondly i would like to propose the following assumptions:

what is neutral? I have always seen that neutral is called neutral because s/he is a lone wolf not on any side but there own. They are not there to add "balance" they are there to win. If neutrals point were to balance games then the best way for them to do that would be to surrender straight away. 

Skill is a non-issue: what i mean by this is that for the purposes of discussion you can't say "well if neutral is a noob and suicided its all bucked so neutral sucks" this is because the same argument can be used against you as well. so its better to talk about situations rather than players skill.

I don't want to make a bigger wall of text than this already is for now so imma just post and disscuss :)
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 12:42pm

Commander yusuke

Joined: Nov 14, 2009
Posts: 218

Come on!How you can ever lose if you play as neutral to win?Neutrals shouldn't exist,no matter how foolish it sounds.And I can't understand those who play as neutral and still lose or just surrender...
Instead of being neutral,please set /away.
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 2:32pm

Cabin Boy jacewayland

Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 62
Location: Austria

I agree with u yusuke, even though your reaction towards neutrals is a bit extrem :D

Cause there are just 2 case:

The neutral player is a noob, in that case he either suicides someone or just sits around, expands a little and waits to be beaten by the winning team.

The neutral player isn´t a noob, then he wins.

From my point of view, neither of these should occur in Teams.

PS: I just know one player who is capable of playing the neutral part in way thats fair, good and entertaining for the server.

PPS: I hope I didnt made too many mistakes, so that you are still able to understand what i wanted to say.
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 3:49pm

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7221
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
fathomme

"What is a neutral? I have always seen that the neutral is called neutral because he is a lone wolf not on any side but their own."

The term "neutral [player]" is a bad one. It implies that the player is not an enemy to either side, which is wrong. A much better term is "loner". It suggests nothing more than what a loner actually is.

"They are not there to add "balance"(,/;/?) they are there to win."
True in a sense, but balancing is key for the loner. It's a means, not an end unto itself. (However, I can't stress enough how important of a means it really is) Everyone should always play to win. Do anything else and the game is a farce.

"Skill is a non-issue. What I mean by this is that for the purposes of discussion you can't say, "Well if the loner is a noob and suicided it's all bucked so loners suck",  because the same argument can be used against you as well. Therefore, it's better to talk about situations rather than players' skill."

Agreed. Sucky players can ruin any setup. That has no bearing on the setup itself.

yusuke

"How you can ever lose if you play to win as a loner?"

Haha. You're kidding, right? It's monumentally easy to lose as the loner. It's one of the hardest scenarios in all of galcon, in my opinion. Fail to balance correctly even for a second and it could be over. You constantly have to walk completely straight or risk falling into the elephant pen.

"Loners shouldn't exist, no matter how foolish it sounds."

You know, peanut butter shouldn't exist either. I know it sounds silly, but it's true. : P

"And I can't understand those who play as the loner and still lose or just surrender..."

I can. Yusuke, how often do you play as the loner? When playing against competent players, losing as the loner is nothing to be ashamed of.

"Instead of being [the loner],please set /away."

Never. If you really don't want to play with a loner, you can set yourself away, although I rather you didn't. There's no better way for a player to get better than through practice. Playing a game of the form NvNv1 is the absolute best way to practice balancing if you're playing as the loner. If you're not, it's just as good as practice as the more general 3-way setup.

jacewayland

"The loner is a noob. In that case he either suicides someone or he just sits around, expands a little and waits to be beaten by the winning team."

In which case, your job is to tell him what he did wrong and help him fix his tactics and strategy. How do you expect him to improve? Play easy games the rest of his career? The proper response to a challenge isn't to run away or to encourage new players from staying away. The proper response is to keep tackling the problem until the solution is trivial.

"The loner isn't a noob and he wins."

Right...Here, I'll boil it down for you. If a player has more skill than his opponents, in general, he'll win the game given any scenario. (As he should, I'd like to point out) My experience certainly doesn't line up with your claim. I think I probably have played as the loner more than any other player or at the very least, I've played it quite often. Given competent players, I'd guess that I win about 40% of the time. Given good players, I'd lower it to %30 of the time. Given new players, I probably win 90% of the time. (These are all guesses. I'd do a more detailed analysis, but games with loners aren't recorded.) When I originally typed 30%, I felt a little sucky. But, given 3 bodies of around the same skill, that's actually more or less what you would ideally expect. 

"PS: I just know one player who is capable of playing the neutral part in way thats fair, good, and entertaining for the server."

Unless you're talking about someone deliberately suiciding someone, "fair" has no relevance. It isn't like a player is unable to change anything. His fate lies in his hands alone. How you interact with people and how you handle situtations, both positive and negative, determine how good of a tactician and strategist you are. Also, I don't care at all how fun the others think any particular game or setup is. It's not my or any other player's responsibility to make the game fun for anyone but themselves. My only responsiblity and goal as a player is to win.


edit 1: Added the quotation marks around the "PS" section. I also edited some of the quotes slightly.

edit 2: Title fix.

edit 3: Fixed the quotations' style and grammar for optimal prettiness.
post updated on Sep 30, 2011 @ 4:05pm
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 5:08pm

Commander yusuke

Joined: Nov 14, 2009
Posts: 218

Yusuke, how often do you play as the loner? When playing against competent players, losing as the loner is nothing to be ashamed of.


I don't play as loner.Marky,when did you see a public server full of competent players?Tell me at what hour it happens to exist.
post updated on Sep 30, 2011 @ 5:08pm
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 5:17pm

Captain ziche

Joined: May 2, 2011
Posts: 1191
Location: Australia

I agree totally with yusuke... Neutrals ruin the game, in my opinion. And they can also drag the games out longer than we want them to be, as (at least in my case) I play teams for some very quick, fast-paced games. If the teams are uneven, simply mix. If you join and there are already some set teams, then simply set /away, waiting for someone to join/leave.

That's how I think it should be at least.

And marky, dont speak evil of The Peanut Butter! It tastes better then anything you can imagine.
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 5:32pm

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7221
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"I don't play as loner."

Then how can you know anything about it? Talking bad about something when you know next to nothing about it isn't particularly wise, in my opinion.

"Marky,when did you see a public server full of competent players?"

Your point? If you're trying to say that games with loners are bad because new players ruin them, I refer you to this point:

(from my last post)
"Sucky players can ruin any setup. That has no bearing on the setup itself."

To answer your question, I often see an especially competent crowd of players in the time frame between 8 PM - ~1 AM EST.

"I agree totally with yusuke... Neutrals ruin the game, in my opinion."

And walruses are the worst thing to happen since the invention of the automatic saxophone. (Hint: Saying things without any sort of reasoning doesn't make for a particularly meaningful statement.) 

"And they can also drag the games out longer than we want them to be, as (at least in my case) I play teams for some very quick, fast-paced games."

You know, they go even faster if you just surrender at the beginning of the game. 

Moronfights (games of the form NvN) are practices in tactics alone. They literally have no strategy involved whatsoever. Disliking something because it forces you to think is a bad thing.
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 5:41pm

Cabin Boy swollenpig

Joined: Jun 12, 2010
Posts: 951
Location: Colorado

Why I think there is much hatred for loners is less the fact that they suicide, and more that they change how the game is played. Usually, when a team game starts, you don't care who is next to you, as long as they aren't on your team, your goal is to kill them. When there is a neutral, or third team, it becomes more like free for all, you need to make sure the person you are attacking  needs to be attacked, or you are simply wasting wasting your teams ships, making the other player/team have a better chance of winning. This is annoying to most, because 90% of players are looking for fast games that have their targets chosen for them.

I do prefer equal teams, but I do enjoy a few games with neutrals. The change in tactics catches most people off guard, and makes it far more interesting. (though I do usually set away, because so many people hate neutrals.)
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 7:32pm

Captain ziche

Joined: May 2, 2011
Posts: 1191
Location: Australia

Marky, you're not making any sense to be honest. Try at least to stay on-topic, and try a LITTLE bit to understand what's trying to be said? ;)

And I did heave a reason for my statement, basically all that yusuke's been saying. Plus the bit about it dragging on the games, and even sometimes causing standoffs, which again is another reason why I play teams, so that I don't play 2 hour games to to try to win some games.

And anyway, I'm just voicing my opinion, I'm not forcing you to play without neutrals yourself...
post updated on Sep 30, 2011 @ 7:35pm
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 8:38pm

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7221
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"Marky, you're not making any sense to be honest. Try at least to stay on-topic, and try a LITTLE bit to understand what's trying to be said? ;)"

Based on the smiley, I'll assume that was a joke. If it wasn't...try rereading my post. I don't think I misunderstood anything that was said.

"And I did heave a reason for my statement, basically all that yusuke's been saying."

Then you should have included those reasons with the statement. (ALthough, resting on arguments that have already been countered isn't a very good idea.)

"I'm just voicing my opinion, I'm not forcing you to play without neutrals yourself..."

And I'm addressing your arguments.  That's how a discussion works. : )
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Sep 30, 2011 @ 9:32pm

Cabin Boy socratic

Joined: Feb 10, 2010
Posts: 1937
Location: =3

Here's how I see it.

The Neutral is not a person who balances the game. The Neutral is simply another player. He is a player who is on his own. For a neutral to win, it is to the best of his interests to help balance the game so that he looks like neither a threat nor a weakling. Then once the heavy assaults of ships have passed, he takes the planets. Cleans up the mess. Wipes the blood off the knife. Tears the last piece of meat from the baby back ribs. That's how Neutrals win(Most of the time).
post updated on Sep 30, 2011 @ 9:35pm
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 3:28am

Captain disciplina

Joined: Mar 28, 2010
Posts: 438
Location: "From past into future."

Basically waits (the loner/neutral) for last possible moment to back-stab them and conquer whole galaxy..ye right i am hardly giving campers free win in Free For All and never in teams.

In my point of view, he is lone wolf vs teams, if he spawn near my team in our "cluster" i will rush him to force him out of there, if he stay he would die (me to i guess then), as s/he and i/we want to win also, and would repeat same action over and over again until team evens out or until he starts complaining. Then either i set away or someone other to fix problem about neutrals... 

Have no problems in waiting few rounds and switching around with people to play as i spectate same from them... 

If we have to had neutral/loner then i would be happier to have "pro" as neutral then a noob, as "pro" have better Game Overview over whole map, which maintain balancing both teams (losing ships on team which will overproduce enemy team and result in wining) but also watching to not overextend on one side...


+ With good "neutral" player, rounds goes a bit longer but teams are even in planets/ships which results in harder win for each team as they both are dead even and have to put 100% effort of whole team to get themselves a win.
post updated on Oct 1, 2011 @ 3:32am
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 4:24am

Commander yusuke

Joined: Nov 14, 2009
Posts: 218

"I don't play as loner."
Then how can you know anything about it? Talking bad about something when you know next to nothing about it isn't particularly wise, in my opinion.


I did play as neutral in the past and I don't think you need to be a super-amazing-pro to win when others are fighting and losing lots of ships.Loners are nothing but destroyers of skill games and fun.
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 4:27am

Ensign hollander

Joined: Dec 20, 2009
Posts: 1657
Location: your pants

if you dont like to play with a neutral player then you set /away. its really that simple.
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 6:09am

Captain ziche

Joined: May 2, 2011
Posts: 1191
Location: Australia

Wow, you've nailed it Hollander.
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 7:20am

Cabin Boy rhydon

Joined: Dec 21, 2010
Posts: 1337
Location: Pallet Town of Course!

"I don't play as loner."
Then how can you know anything about it? Talking bad about something when you know next to nothing about it isn't particularly wise, in my opinion.


I did play as neutral in the past and I don't think you need to be a super-amazing-pro to win when others are fighting and losing lots of ships.Loners are nothing but destroyers of skill games and fun.



Hate to be this guy, but Team games already didn't require skill.
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 7:43am

Cabin Boy bl4cksun

Joined: Sep 5, 2011
Posts: 13

It does require skill. :D even if i played galcon about 10 times in my life and im a total noob, i know this :D
I'll just say my word, correct me if i'm wrong but yusuke said that loners/neutrals should set away. But what if those neutrals WANTS to play even though the teams aren't fair?
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 7:49am

Cabin Boy darkangel00

Joined: Jan 15, 2011
Posts: 13

I love neutrals
post updated on Oct 1, 2011 @ 7:50am
Re: Loners in a 3-way are not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 10:04am

Cabin Boy marky1991

Joined: Nov 8, 2009
Posts: 7221
Location: Douglasville, GA

Deputy
"I did play as the loner in the past and I don't think you need to be a super-amazing-pro to win when others are fighting and losing lots of ships. Loners are nothing but destroyers of skill games and fun."

If the other two teams are fighting each other and are ignoring the loner entirely, they're being stupid and they're the ones preventing it from being a "skill game". Stupid people deserve to lose. As I've said before, a skilled player should and will beat incompetent ones no matter the scenario.
Re: Neutral in 3-way is not so bad! (Teams) :: Oct 1, 2011 @ 3:57pm

Cabin Boy fathomme

Joined: May 17, 2010
Posts: 24

Wow, i never expected so many responces :P thanks everyone.

+1 to marky1991, especially for his first post.
+1 hollander, if you don't like neutral then set away yourself. nail in that coffin.

I find neutral is quite hard to play. as a lone player you always start with a disadvantage. Half the ships and half the number of clicks as the teams (at the least). The premise is to keep some sort of balance between the teams until you can tip the game in your own favour. In this respect its no different than campers in ffa because if you let that happen its you that lack skill not then neutral. but it takes more skill than camping because in order to end up in that position normally forces you to play.

1vs1 and 3-way are my favourite ways to play classic. both are very challenging in different ways (and no i rarely end up with a stand off in 3-way), i don't really see much difference in playing 3way like that and playing neutral in teams except that it is a little more difficult.

To those that are against neutral, i ask: Do you like other types of 3-way? such as 3 vs 3 vs 3 or 1 vs 1 vs 1? If so how do you think that is better?

Page 1 / 2 1   2 

You must sign in to post.