Warrior General Games

There really aren't any player tactics, especially on the o side of things. The huge drop off comes from players assigning skill points. While a team of 40 players between one agent can benefit building behind one strategy that doesn't mean you can't put together a team behind a strategy, it isn't the end all. I have already showed you Zorin, a team that destroyed Queen City in the first round of their playoffs, who is made up of a bunch of wildly different builds. OG won their league and the only thing based around a strategy is their oline, everything else is just a bunch of different ideas.

Really though the only thing that has become obvious is your jelly.

Originally posted by bhall43
Really though the only thing that has become obvious is your jelly.

Naw I didn't take season 1 seriously but I wish I had since winning in rookie apparently means everything to everyone

Ah the old "I didn't win so it wasn't a big deal to me" line....used by scrubs everywhere.

Originally posted by bhall43
Ah the old "I didn't win so it wasn't a big deal to me" line....used by scrubs everywhere.

Lol it was an experiment for me. If you were a tester, obviously you didn't have an experimental period

Ah the old "i was just experimenting and didn't care about winning" line....used by scrubs everywhere.

Lol okay

Toonball is serious competition.

oooh +10

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
Oh hey bhole I was just wondering when yous jump in.

Well believe it or not, I don't think these 1 (or two or three or four) man bands are bad teams, I just think the drop off from a one man band to a team of many agents is too much and it's clearly exploitable as a direct result of having extremely limited control over tactics. You want to win, buy a team and 40 players. If you want to greatly improve your chances of losing, sign a single player or two to a collaborative team with 30-40 different agents. But you have the egotist trait in the real so you can't agree to something that's become extremely obvious

I'd guess more one man (or close to one man) teams didn't win the championship than did.

I know of at least one that got booted out by a CPU team.

Originally posted by Corndog
I'd guess more one man (or close to one man) teams didn't win the championship than did.

I know of at least one that got booted out by a CPU team.

ridiculous!! If thats really happening that sucks!!!

Originally posted by tdog
ridiculous!! If thats really happening that sucks!!!

they lost to a human controlled CPU team... who had a great gameplan against a scrub gameplan

Originally posted by Corndog
I'd guess more one man (or close to one man) teams didn't win the championship than did.

I know of at least one that got booted out by a CPU team.

Doesn't mean that one man teams aren't extremely better on average. Am I the only one who can acknowledge this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
Doesn't mean that one man teams aren't extremely better on average. Am I the only one who can acknowledge this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

There have been about 5 posts from bhall explaining why this is... it has nothing to do with the fact it's on agent. It has to do with one cohesive plan. You can achieve this with multiple people too. It's just a control factor. If you know your strengths and weaknesses, you can make the ideal plan for that.

Why do you continue to spout this bullshit? It's dumb.

Originally posted by Homage
There have been about 5 posts from bhall explaining why this is... it has nothing to do with the fact it's on agent. It has to do with one cohesive plan. You can achieve this with multiple people too. It's just a control factor. If you know your strengths and weaknesses, you can make the ideal plan for that.

Why do you continue to spout this bullshit? It's dumb.

Your post

"You're right, one man bands do have a greatly increased chance to win

You're full of shit"