Squad Rearrangments

Okay, so...when we created the original two squads we had 10 members. We now have 16. A-Squad is experiencing slight activity problems already. That can probably be dealt with soon, and I will jump right on that. B-Squad has very little activity issues, and seems to be working well together from what I can tell. I applaud you all and wish you all the best of luck as your match continues. We managed to slip another player not in a 5v5 match into a 3v3 match. That's still 5 players bored within the alliance. You know me, I can't have that. You all should have something to do, so here's the plan...

We have a pending challenge that was sent to us last week. It's for a 5v5 match. Obviously another squad will be made, and these guys will be inserted immediately into their first match. C-Squad will be thrown into a war zone without every fighting with each other, unlike A-Squad and B-Squad who had an internal game for trial-and-error. Best of luck...

We cant just take 5 people and throw em into a squad and say "fight" though. These guys gotta still have some balance. This means the other squads will be slightly rearranged too. Unfortunately, if you're on B-Squad for example, and I send you to C-Squad, you're going to be playing two big 5v5 matches at once. You WILL be expected to be active in both games, I'm sorry about that but it WILL be expected. Your other non-alliance games are less important. If you absolutely must make less effort in a game or two, it better not be your alliance game. "Your" alliance games aren't just yours. They are 4 other peoples medals your toying with, as well as an alliance medal. That doesn't just mean a shiny medal gets put on our Service Record, it also means we shoot up in the ranks! We'd like to have a nice rank. That means WINS.

As leader I do what I can to get these medals and wins for the alliance. But I can't play for you, I can just put you with the best group I can and get the matches for you. You guys press the "Join Game" button, not me. You guys play the game. You guys represent your alliance. You guys are the champions.

So, I will be taking requests and suggestions for the next 48 HOURS, that's all you get. Once that's over, I'm locking the squads, and sending C-Squad into their match. Okay everyone? Use your voice while you can.


A-Squad:
- DoomDealer (Leader)
- Josiah (Co-Leader)
- Wesley
- Benji
- Bnett

B-Squad:
- Pags (Leader)
- Chiolas (Co-Leader)
- Winston
- Hawk
- Obsi

C-Squad:
- Whitedawg (Leader)
- Kane (Co-Leader)
- Supremacy
- Tango
- Scoders


Well, that's that guys. That is what I'm considering. We will accept the challenge in 24 hours. We will join the match in 48 hours. You have until then, 48 hours, to make your opinions, request changes, use your voice about these squads before they become set in stone. Please, let me know what you think, how I did, where you'd like to be, whatever it is. Let me know!

Thanks guys (hope you read everything, I worked hard on it),
Admiral Doom

It's all good with me.

Make sure the least experienced players get to play again (in a less competitive squad). There's only a limited amount of information one can give through messages or guides, it's through experience that one learns the most (defensive manoeuvres, fighting an NPC, buillding early artillerys, etc.)

I've been helping Tango (I'm happy TO help him, I'm not happy I DIDN'T KNOW I had to help him ) and just to set up a defense for Morocco my message was huge (and if the enemy intercepts it our position can become compromised)

It's easier to work with someone who knows what he's doing, things just flow you know...^^



In squad 2 game there's only winstonchurchillfail, he was inactive for a while and now he returned, making me lose the shared map (I already made another prooposal but he still didn't accept it), of course now he has tons of troops and is pwning Russia but still

all good here

Chiolas, good idea in thought, but I want to keep the squads balanced. This challenge:

Is from the #1 ranked alliance.

That doesn't say much now. I know that. I believe rank doesn't mean crap. But a record does. They're only 2-0. But I can't just throw 5 people who are gonna screw up into a match like that and give us a loss Wins send us up, losses send us down Sooo I tried to give as much balance as I could, while leaving B-Squad together as much as I could cause you all are kicking ass.

that sounds fine to me...sorry about not logging on...had some work to do. i'll let you guys know next time.

Bud, i think you need to hold a "Skills round" we need to find everyone who can be put into important matches without worry, and those that need to be taught the basics of the game.

Also, you should have squads arranged by skill. With a good captain in each as a solid leader.

A-Best
B-Average
C-Below Average

Sure im sure some people will get angry, but they need to know where they fit in so that they can improve.

Just my opinion, but i think that the way you have it set up is a good second. =)

Yes, I think you guys are right. Maybe I have been going about this the wrong way. I've been making this squads with the assumption that all squads will be playing in matches. I just didn't want to lose a match so we had to balance them. But if a squad is a non-match squad...it doesn't matter if it's balanced...

How about a little modification to your plan Josiah?

A-Squad: Representatives of the alliance. Match fighters.
B-Squad: Members and Trainers. Internal matches only.
C-Squad: Members and Trainers. Internal matches only.

What if A-Squad was the only competing squad? B-Squad & C-Squad could have internal matches between each other. Based on these matches and the match results from the top guys, people would be moved up to A-Squad or sent down a squad. If we get 20 members, we could make an A-2 squad.

Just note that having fewer fighting squads means the players in the fighting squads need to dedicate more time and play more match games. Sometimes we will have 2 matches going on at once. Right now we have 3 matches, 1 match pending, and 1 internal game. Now, I'm not going to lie I've gone inactive in the internal game multiple times, but whats more important, a game that doesn't count or two games counting towards our record?

Talent WILL be overridden by activity in some cases when it comes to being put on the match squad.

Would this system fly better with you guys?

how will we decide whether or not people get moved up or down? I like this idea, maybe the b and c squads can play other groups of a similar nature from other alliances?

Bnett wrote:

how will we decide whether or not people get moved up or down? I like this idea, maybe the b and c squads can play other groups of a similar nature from other alliances?

Problem is, the point is to keep C-Squad matches (which could possibly be lost) from hurting our record. The match B-Squad is playing right now is against another alliances similarly-talented group of players, so yes, when I take matches I do try to make sure we aren't going to lose. But C-Squad is not going to be balanced anymore.

It's not like C-Squad wouldn't get matches. C-Squad would fight against B-Squad. It's still a 5v5. It's still a competitive game (you're fighting for your right to represent your alliance!). They're just playing against people in the alliance instead of strangers.


The movement of people between squads would be conferred between me and the B & C squad leaders. Final decision would rest with me.

do you think we should do somethign so that peopel form different squads will get to interact? like an a-squader and a c-squader? cliques in the alliance might not be good. maybe choose your own ingame alliance 30 player matches?

30 player matches can't always be made. And thats the point of this site nobody ever uses haha. I mean, I worked hard to make this a place that can be a COMMUNITY for the alliance. Think about it, forums with polls, general talk areas, places to share stuff, a live chatbox on the homepage? All these things allow everyone in the alliance to talk, interact, share vids, etc, whatever you want.

People only come here if I ask them to in a message. They're secluding themselves on their own already.

ya true that. its hard to get peopel active on forums.

Sounds like a good plan, I think we need to dedicate people to teaching newer players, or players who request, or obviously need help.

Also, we need to make a limit on to how many games we take on at once. Because, well i think i have 12 games running and that's why im doing so bad.

But anyways, i think that it would be smart to have A squad, mentor B, C squads. While also monitoring their progress and deciding on if they need special attention and extra help, or if they deserve to move to A or maybe to B. Or something of the sorts.


Yeah, well to be honest with you, its a good forum but its to busy and really hard to get around. So even for me, and i have used plenty of forums, but even for me this feels overwhelming. Maybe we need to change it and simplify it.

Quote :

do you think we should do somethign so that peopel form different squads will get to interact? like an a-squader and a c-squader? cliques in the alliance might not be good. maybe choose your own ingame alliance 30 player matches?

I'm taking suggestions. Not just taking them, acting on them. Your right, I don't want A-Squad boys feeling to comfortable in their seats. Higher than B-Squad or C-Squad players. B-Squad and C-Squad (if this is enacted) will be seeing a lot of each other and I HOPE become friends. A-Squad probably won't.

Quote :

Also, we need to make a limit on to how many games we take on at once. Because, well i think i have 12 games running and that's why im doing so bad.

Once our current matches are over, we aren't taking on more than 2 matches at a time. If we take on 2 matches, it will be carefully thought over before. I think nobody should be allowed to have more than 2 non-alliance related games running. It's a rule that can't be monitored, but a rule that can keep people active. I have 3 non-alliance games running, and 3 alliance games running. Too much. But barely manageable.

Quote :

But anyways, i think that it would be smart to have A squad, mentor B, C squads. While also monitoring their progress and deciding on if they need special attention and extra help, or if they deserve to move to A or maybe to B. Or something of the sorts.

The Trainer Squads will each be lead and supervised by a volunteer A-Rate player. These two players can be rotated between A-Squad matches. That way they still get some competitive match time, but can train the Trainer Squads. These players will not only help their members, but report to me and let me know how their doing. Activity, playing, everything. That's how we'd know to promote em.

Quote :

Yeah, well to be honest with you, its a good forum but its to busy and really hard to get around. So even for me, and i have used plenty of forums, but even for me this feels overwhelming. Maybe we need to change it and simplify it.

I'm obviously biased for making the forum, but I'm open to taking suggestions about that too. Only, these suggestions should go in the Suggestions area since they do not pertain to this topic.

Any reply should be about anything but the last quote.

Just like you asked, i put it up for a suggestion.

I think we have enough good players that only 5 of the alliance playing other alliances seems too small. I mean, as alliance creator you will obviously have a spot, leaving 20 or so people (I can't remember how many members we have now) competing for 4 places. 2 fighting squads is good, with others in training. Also, going up or down in squads will be easier said than done, as skill can't really be recorded, the way your brain reacts to a certain situation, someone may learn something new or a new approach to a situation but the only person who knows that would be them, until they could implement it in a game. I'm new to the 5 v 5 thing but it seems a lot less complicated in terms of gameplay, as battleships don't usually get a chance to be made, less space, more about hordes of troops rushing for land. If a 16 v 16 game comes about I highly recommend accepting.

I have a few non alliance games running but a lot of them are in days 30+ and will be getting wrapped up soon so after them I'll keep it to 4 max.

I don't have anything to say really so whatever works right?

Oh Obsi I agree 100% these 5v5s are different, lame, and require no tactical brainpower at all. But the question comes down to: "Who can be the best at this tactically retarted style of play."

And no, I probably wont play all the A-Squad games. I'll probably play one at a time, but never 2. We have 15 members exactly. That's 3 squads. I wish we had enough for an A-2 but we just dont.

Sorry havent been on lately I have stomach cancer and had a very bad week last week. I dont mind jumping between squads and that since I can have rough weeks like last week were I cant even get ot of bed sometimes. I still want to be apart of the league its just hard if I miss some time thats all.

Wow man... that is some heavy stuff. I hope you pull through this and my thoughts and prayers will seriously be with you and your family in this tough time.