287 replies to this topic

[-AGGA-]

-=$GOD$=- ?? uhm.. .tropicana (a dutch team) .. uhm .. =Nuke= lol!

[snugg]

Sylt and Camham, am I correct in saying that you guys are saying that the following functions of a leader are completely irrelevant in sof?

1. Creating a chill atmosphere to play in, minimizing the negative effects of internal clan issues (like 2 guys not liking each other) on the clan as a whole.
2. motivating all the players in his team to do well.
3. Trying to make sure for every player that he's not too careless, but that he's also not too nervous for a war.
4. coming up with tactics and strategy for every round (not just saying 3 conf 2 east, giving specific instructions and advise to each player, and coming up with a Plan B and a plan C when the usual tac isn't working)
5. Letting all the players focus purely on their own game, and prevent them from ever having to worry how a war is going (eg: while they're playing, what aspects could be improved to increase the odds of getting points and winning a war) The leader does this for them
6. Encouraging communication between all the players (getting all players to buy a mic, download mumble, to report everything that matters during wars)
7. Recruiting the right players
8. Arranging the wars
9. Arranging worthy replacements when a player lags out or has to go
10. Assembling the best line-up for the more important wars

So according to you guys, these 10 functions, which I just came up with off the top off my head (based on the things that Hokie actually did constantly back in the day), all don't really matter?
just let every player do his own thang and all's fine?




and let me answer your question with another question Sylt. Which conditions would you prefer to play in in order to "prevent a RRE" and to hold case in?

One where there's no team cohesion, where some people aren't really that motivated to play,
a couple of guys have to go soon too while noone's taking care of a replacement,
there's noone really clearly making tactics every round,
you feel like you have to start worrying not only about your own performance but about the performance of the other players and about the performance of the whole team,
there's only half a team on mumble, there's a lack of communication,
there's guys getting pissed off at each other, no teamwork
and just a general lack of care and fun in the war.

Or another condition where you don't have to worry about those things getting in the way, because you know you have a leader who's not gonna let ANY combination of the previous issues happen?

Basically you are saying you wouldn't have a particular preference, right?

ok

Edited by snugg, 11 June 2012 - 12:05 AM.

[Laffe Herder]

Sylt and Camham, am I correct in saying that you guys are saying that the following functions of a leader are completely irrelevant in sof?

1. Creating a chill atmosphere to play in, minimizing the negative effects of internal clan issues (like 2 guys not liking each other) on the clan as a whole.
2. motivating all the players in his team to do well.
3. Trying to make sure for every player that he's not too careless, but that he's also not too nervous for a war.
4. coming up with tactics and strategy for every round (not just saying 3 conf 2 east, giving specific instructions and advise to each player, and coming up with a Plan B and a plan C when the usual tac isn't working)
5. Letting all the players focus purely on their own game, and prevent them from ever having to worry how a war is going (eg: while they're playing, what aspects could be improved to increase the odds of getting points and winning a war) The leader does this for them
6. Encouraging communication between all the players (getting all players to buy a mic, download mumble, to report everything that matters during wars)
7. Recruiting the right players
8. Arranging the wars
9. Arranging worthy replacements when a player lags out or has to go
10. Assembling the best line-up for the more important wars

So according to you guys, these 10 functions, which I just came up with off the top off my head (based on the things that Hokie actually did constantly back in the day), all don't really matter?
For real?

1: That's the main goal. Only thing the leader has to do.
2: See 1
3: See 1
4: Bullshit, players do that themselves. If not, there's one shotcaller in the team. Doesn't have to be the leader!
5: Bullshit
7: A good leader makes a vote and talks with his members, which means they all have the same influence when it's about recruiting.
6: See 1
8: Members find them aswell
9: Members will do that aswell
10: Now that's a thing leaders have to manage, along with their members.

Overall, leaders during a war are overrated, as I already mentioned. Only thing he gotta do is to keep the fun alive.
Point 10 is a good point, except it's a point out-game.

PS: You didn't tell me WHAT exactly hokie was better at than other leaders as you were saying that 3v. had some mega edge in the past when he was around. Imo there is NO edge to have hokie on your side. I can speak for c4. if I say we have a mega edge in c4. it's because skoko is one of the best around and not because he s our tactical leader.


When a clan just started, or isn't that good, there is a huge job for the leader, but I'm really sure there isn't much of a benefit to have hokie on your team, because he basicly was the worst of the team 80% of the time.

Edited by Laffe Herder, 11 June 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[katana.]

You're missing the point, Snugg. I don't think anyone said those things are completely irrelevant. You do make it sound like its this super hard thing to accomplish for a leader, when in fact they are done with a click of a button. Like making a convo or asking for a war.
When you've just created a team and players don't know each other its up to you to only direct them in the right order by doing basic stuff like tactics. When time goes by and you created a core and friendships arise everyone will pitch in with tactics, communications and basically everything you just mentioned above. I don't care how great of a leader you think people are/were you simply cant succeed without your team backing you up and pitching in with whatever, loyalty being the biggest one.

Ps. Nothing against Hokie, In fact I played with 3v. the very first time it got created but I decided to stay in -={The Egg}=- after a couple matches. We were always ''fighting'' though for a reason I cant remember, so its unfair to say he was always a dick to me, maybe I deserved it lol.

Edited by katana., 11 June 2012 - 12:24 AM.

[snugg]

1: That's the main goal. Only thing the leader has to do.
2: See 1
3: See 1
4: Bullshit, players do that themselves. If not, there's one shotcaller in the team. Doesn't have to be the leader!
5: Bullshit
7: A good leader makes a vote and talks with his members, which means they all have the same influence when it's about recruiting.
6: See 1
8: Members find them aswell
9: Members will do that aswell
10: Now that's a thing leaders have to manage, along with their members.

Overall, leaders during a war are overrated, as I already mentioned. Only thing he gotta do is to keep the fun alive.
Point 10 is a good point, except it's a point out-game.

So I see you're saying if there's a chill atmosphere to play in, there's automatically:
- a general desire to play well
- the right level of motivation for every player (noone's too careless, noone's too nervous)
- instant communication among all members on mumble
Those things are not the same Camham, every player on sof knows this. There can be a chill atmosphere in a mixteam, that doesn't mean everyone has the desire to do well as a team, it doesn't mean that every player has an optimal level of care about the war and it doesn't mean that all those guys in the mixteam will automatically get on mumble and start communicating. Can you seriously argue against this?

for points 4,8,9 you're saying the members take care off those jobs. I think it's safe to say it's way more comfortable and cool for the member if they know the leader can do this, that he can take care of it better than any member in the clan, and that they can comfortably rely on him for doing it.

Are you still saying with 100% certainty that the leader's role is overestimated?

Also you're saying points 4 and 5 are bullshit, which I don't understand. This is what Hokie actually took care of every war back in the day, so I can't see how you can dismiss it as bullshit.


@Katana: that's true, without a decent team backing you up, you can't function as a whole either, both are necessary I think, but would you agree in saying: it's just a "call and shoot" game or saying that anyone can take up the role as leader and it wouldn't really make a difference? Taking into account the 2 different conditions that can be created by presence OR absence of a decent leader? (see previous post)

Edited by snugg, 11 June 2012 - 12:30 AM.

[Laffe Herder]

The role of the leader is overrated, yes. There is NO way the leader would make a difference between winnning and losing just by ''leading''. If he sucks ingame, he is no valuable asset to the team. A leader has 2 functions. 1: A leader needs to put the players on the right spots. In a good clan players will do that theirselves, in a bad/new clan a leader needs to take care of that. 2: A leader needs to keep the fun on going when playing a war. If two good, equal clans are playing each other it's just about a few moments, mostly individual moments.

give me five skoko's and u can have 5 hokies. It will pretty much prove my point. This discussion is useless because everybody feels different about it.

Edited by Laffe Herder, 11 June 2012 - 12:31 AM.

[snugg]

The role of the leader is overrated, yes. There is NO way the leader would make a difference between winnning and losing just by ''leading''. If he sucks ingame, he is no valuable asset to the team. A leader has 2 functions. 1: A leader needs to put the players on the right spots. In a good clan players will do that theirselves, in a bad/new clan a leader needs to take care of that. 2: A leader needs to keep the fun on going when playing a war. If two good, equal clans are playing each other it's just about a few moments, mostly individual moments.

give me five skoko's and u can have 5 hokies. It will pretty much prove my point. This discussion is useless because everybody feels different about it.

hmm, ok, though I think you have a pretty black and white, narrow view of what difference a true leader can make in a clan.


So according to your view, the following should be true:

In a match between 2 opponents who have the exact same overall worth of individual skill, it would not matter if one opponent has a decent leader guiding the team (in the various ways that me and exe have been describing, based on what Hokie did) and the other opponent does NOT have a decent leader. The outcome will be purely decided by a few individual moments? That's what you're implying, correct?

Edited by snugg, 11 June 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[Skiller]

Hmmmmm if im not wrong it was like
ArT, RORIX, Jedi_Master ak.a GunSlinger who aslo... Holocaust, Gibon
shit was very old they started about when we started >[SK]< december of 2002
Lord_garY

Gibon loL he was my father and he teach me how to play sof xDDDDD funny shit ;p

btw

N*S*A = daveron,bloodyshark,lorshe,janosik,karfur,demonic,martinno,wombat,proskiller and more more ...
oMa| = imo the best clan on demo in 2004?2005? team pol from gold and demo
Ks = everyone now

Edited by Skiller, 11 June 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[malign]

I have played many wars where the opponent would win the 2nd round with 1 or 2 points more than we did. (It happens when you have played a few thousand wars on this game) And let me tell you, compared to your sample of 1(!) war versus c4, Most of the times a war is lost when you were leading big in start is because the opponent was just better this match.

I find it to be a bit repellent to discuss this stuff about hokie, from both sides. Exe phrased his stuff a bit disrespectful toward the players involved in the story, like they were puppets being played by some Machiavelli. He talks like(which means you didn't phrase it literally like that, but to me the tone was like that) hokie himself was completely perfect and some kind of ubermensch. I think such claims will raise some resistance, it quite disgusts me.

Just chill the fuck out, he was probably a cool dude and did a pretty good job at leading a team. Oh shit, I mean clan(arbitrary distinctions on this game :x)

And you people are all fucking good players, with skills no one others have. You are all special and it's all talents and gifts. Practice had nothing to do with this. No one will reach your level of quick flick sniper shots with a high sens versus low pingers while rushing the roof because a clan tends to not come up so fast. (I had to use your talk as an example executor, since it was very fresh in my memory )

Maybe sometimes the better team just wins, because they have played more together and are in a better shape in the moment of the fight.....

[Laffe Herder]

If its about hokie then theres no difference as he wasnt a good aimer. Any other in his place would be better.
In general, theres full transparency at this game so its hard to be a tactical genius.

And yea, equal matches will be decided by individual mistakes.

[malign]

WHAT !!??? IM NOT EVEN LISTED I PONY!??? it's the only reason why people still say 'hi pino' when I enter a server despite being a newb and asshole to them.

[BladHark]

c4 - skoko steven kapu dio mociema orel

the founding crew

[katana.]

@Katana: that's true, without a decent team backing you up, you can't function as a whole either, both are necessary I think, but would you agree in saying: it's just a "call and shoot" game or saying that anyone can take up the role as leader and it wouldn't really make a difference? Taking into account the 2 different conditions that can be created by presence OR absence of a decent leader? (see previous post)

This started with you and presumably exe cause I didn't read his long ass post, saying a leader (Hokie in this case) makes all the difference in the world. To answer your question, I don't think it would make a difference who would lead it for the simple fact that the presence of a ''great'' leader won't change the outcome of a match cause the title leader doesn't make you a better player and wont make you play better as a team, you either have it on lock down or you don't. There are some things a good leader can do and im sure you or exe pointed them out but it's just not a big enough factor to seriously consider it a game changer.

[vo!ume]

best clan ever - .ee

[vilzeh]

I was in Sovjet, |she|, SWA, sK. , Owng.performance

Also add "hpda|" in that list. (UNDEFEATED)

Members: Ark, Fade, Vilzey, Razor (Mak3), Zami, Drunken-Master.

I was the best leader ever, because I just screamed 24/7 and no one had the chance to talk, which means you have to just do the talk with your headshots, yeah, I was the best leader ever, what a motivator to shut me up, shoot headshots.

Edited by vilzeh, 11 June 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[doctorfunk]

i'm glad to see we are finally on the same side in a debate Snugg
Little stuff takes on meaning when games are close. Then everything matters. Cummunication/timely change of tactic/self-confidence of players, etc. Good leader won't make bad players good, but he can make good players just a little bit better which may win a round or two and sometimes that's enough. It may be less important in case of c4., as people there are really get used to each other after all these years. Can't imagine skoko as some vocal charismatic leader(though i may be wrong ) he is always so reserved on db

[XILLAX]

Spoiler

Too bad you're blind to see how it works nowadays, even after Exe's story which was nicely written, I'll explain it one more time for you.

First of all, let's involve the Facing Worlds III in this.

Match results don't lie, and everybody says the line-up you use is no excuse for what the score will be.
In that case, let's check it out:

R-C vs c4. was 14-15.
Proof: http://www.demobase....4442-c4-vs-r-c/

Now nVm vs c4.
We have way more experience than nVm, let's check the result:

nVm vs c4. was 14-13
Proof: http://www.demobase....4-vs-nvm-final/

This was the most recent Cup.
So what can we conclude?
That there is competition now, nVm is at the moment the deserved clan to be called the best clan.
Check how close R-C was, only one point difference.
You guys were actually good, it really surprises me you and Abu think we are gods or something meanwhile we have still a hard time playing demo.
It is nice that there is a clan that can beat us.
Of course we won many Cups with c4., but that was my personal goal as well, seems logical.
If we would rape every clan with a big score than the story would be different, I would have probably left c4. in that case since if would be too boring.
They are my friends, but they also know that it must be fun to play the game.
And we all got different teams, my friends in c4. take me as a person who I am and even if I would leave c4. (which currently is not necessary if you check the competition) we would still be good friends.
Anyway the Cups we have won were good to play, not boring as well.
Maybe on goldmaps we have more experience, so in these matches we raped many clans yes I admit that.
But nowadays there is no way we would win a final against a decent line-up with 20 to 3 or something.

This is what happens when XILLAX isn't asked to play the cupwars.

XILLAX never lost a war since 2003.

[bing bang blaow]

It's a small game without any secrets. Therefore the only thing to do ingame is to call and to shoot. A 10-3 win after a 10-4 loss is just a mix of luck and skills. Also about the mentality of the players.

reading reading reading


then i get to ur post

i see this

It's a small game without any secrets. Therefore the only thing to do ingame is to call and to shoot. A 10-3 win after a 10-4 loss is just a mix of luck and skills. Also about the mentality of the players.

so you disagree with snugg but then decide to agree anyways

[Laffe Herder]

And Abu never lost a mixwar!

Edited by Laffe Herder, 11 June 2012 - 08:01 AM.