[CBA]

Originally Posted by booji

While to a certain extent I agree that it is the potential competitors who are to blame I think you underestimate the difficulties politically they have compared to ult's position.

Ult has a big advantage in hoovering up the unambitious alliances which makes for very easy alliance politics - and is why ult has such a good reputation.

By contrast the competitor alliances are left with each other. They don't trust each other. Part of this is based upon experience often going back a very long way. A large part is down to who the HC are. But the biggest part is they they are competitors. They actually need to be looking over their shoulder to what the others are doing as in the unlikely event all three of Carnage/p3n/ND got together and hit ult and were winning there will be big incentives for an alliance to peel off and freeride or even defect if they think they can roidrace ult. If the three won then there would have to be a round of wars involving backstabbing to settle who actually wins the round (with a good chance ult manages to sneak a win while that goes on), the alliances in question's reputation get worse and it becomes more difficult to do again in future.

Added to this diplomatic problem is the disinclination of members to fight ult (p3n this round voted against it, and I'm sure carnage members were of similar mind or their HC would have been more inclined to join a block). This is rational. Most people don't want to spend the round chipping away at targets that defend very well while freeriders do well, everyone wants to be the freerider. And this round everyone tried it. Perhaps the result will encourage people back to trying to stop ult.

Very well written Booji. If p3ng members & Carnage members wanted to hit allies where they would land more then I guess that is fair enough. It is just shame that by doing this a alliance would runaway with the win and the whole round would become stale.