Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
I know thats exactly what you meant. Is my reply any less valid because you thought that I thought wrong, no, it's exactly the same either way. Let me add one word just to clarify, I'm sure you weren't incapable of doing so yourself but to avoid pedantics.
|
But it most definitely
did made them better run (or made them run better, whichever one you prefer) than CT in the same situation, which is exactly what I was (and you weren't) saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
xVx allowed themselves to be used by a foreign group of players to meet their own goals for the round, it's no shame on CT to not allow this to happen. I would definitely not say that xVx are better run than CT because their HC are more submissive (which is basically the argument here).
|
Personally I think the Liths used xVx as much as xVx used the Liths. The Liths wanted a place where they could play together without having to bother with many of the issues involved in setting up a new hierarchic alliance (i.e. tools and to an extent pre-round politics and command structure). xVx wanted competent BCs and HCs to lead their alliance to a good finishing position. Both sides got what they wanted, though obviously they'll always want more.
I don't think it's inherently submissive to recognise that the group you're taking in is more skilled at the game than you are (but only if you do it
correctly!).
All that said, I specifically did not conclude that xVx was a better alliance based on how they handled the Liths, compared to how CT handled Evo. I based
that conclusion on the general performance of CT in the second half of every round since r26, at least. The only way they would've gained points in my book is if they hadn't failed again this round, and they would have had a better chance of that, if they'd taken you in better.