Thread: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
View Single Post
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 23:55
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!!
Posted by Matt Leese.

Other on team #73 from Rochester Institute of Technology and None.

Posted on 10/2/2000 9:07 AM MST


In Reply to: QUESTION OF THE WEEK!!! posted by Andy Grady on 10/1/2000 8:26 PM MST:



Well, the main thing with putting more teams on the field is that I don't really see any advantages. When alliances were first instituted (hehe...I made a pun), there was the advantage that teams then had to be able to work together. There isn't that striking advantage with making alliances of three or putting three alliances on the field. The only advantage of three teams to an alliance is that it's a bit less detremental if one member is not able to play in a match (3 on 2 is better than 2 on 1). I don't think that's enough of an advantage to outweigh the disadvantages of it (larger playing field, more complex to come up with strategy, etc.). Then again I'm the person who thought alliances were a bad idea when he first heard them.

Matt


__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.