BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I admittedly didn't read every post here, so I caveat what I'm about to type with that.
If the ultimate goal in a team game is to win, one would assume that teammates would look to the most skilled player to direct their actions (I believe Changy referred to points as #5 on his list of five reasons for dictators, I believe points is likely numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 as well). I digress. In the real world, if one wishes to succeed in a customer or client service line of business (for example law or accounting or engineering), one necessarily defers to those who have more experience, talent, and/or skill. This is a natural occurrence if a team wishes to be successful. For example, if I am in a meeting with a client regarding the reduction of their overall tax liability through planning in order to win work from the client, I will certainly not interject my thoughts on a tax technical item when someone with more experience, talent, and skill is in the room. We are more likely to win the work if the person with the most experience, talent, and skill talks about his or her area of expertise than if I interjected my own opinion, however valid that may be. There are likely many more examples of this phenomenon in real life.
In most CC games, I will defer to other players. I'm submissive, to borrow Mr. C's term, in CC games because my expertise in that area pales in comparison to those with whom I play games. Therefore, those of you who may be offended by Mr. C's use of certain terms, which imply a lack of assertiveness, shouldn't be. When my teammate has spent more time, energy, and intellect on the play of this game, I will defer to that teammate so that we can reach our ultimate goal of winning points. And that happens in real life too.
But in some circumstances, you possess relevant knowledge which may be extremely useful for the team and which no one but you possess; however, since you feel inferior to the superior's "expertise," you'll fail to act on the incentive to disseminate such knowledge (of course, there are many other reasons/incentives too).
The last 3-4 paragraphs in this deal with the above in more detail.
For what it's worth, I think Mr. C may agree with you.
Given the number of maps and types of gameplay, does this phenomen that you describe happen often? Will there be three players (including one dictator) all of whom have expertise on Waterloo, trips, freestyle, trench, flat rate?
I'm sure you have more experience in this regard, but when I have participated in clan war-type games, the "home" team picks its maps and setting primarily on what maps and settings its players have expertise with. And this tends to be one player having an expertise and the other players joining along. Now, you may have had different experiences than me and there are certainly other considerations (e.g. gameplay restrictions; pairing effective teammates). But I think if it's acknowledged that I am the expert on the Waterloo map, I'm going to be on the team that plays the Waterloo map, and I'm probably going to be the dictator.