Hi all (MP chat)

[Tomisama]

Having a passive and an aggressive player on the same team doesn't work very well if neither are willing to change their style of play. They will each end up fighting the enemy team separately, and be defeated in detail.

True, but I don’t think that I would classify any player as passive (only reactive), perhaps cautious or conservative, but I may be mincing words.

People will play conservatively if they are uncertain about what’s going to happen. Communication and experience with a given set of players will bring them into better supportive, and eventually more active lead roles.

But this takes time, and effort. And to expect someone to be your (not you personally) “wingman of years”, in only a months time (and only playing weekends), is fairly preposterous. And this is exponentially exaggerated when there was no communication effort made.

[TosaInu]

True, but I don’t think that I would classify any player as passive (only reactive), perhaps cautious or conservative, but I may be mincing words.

You're right Tomisama, this may be blunt stereotyping, sorry.

I also think players show more than one of these stereotypes in each battle. An anvil player (yes, I know ) for example can have some cavalry to hammer, harass or chase.

People will play conservatively if they are uncertain about what’s going to happen.

Yes, or to fool the opponent/wear his patience. That can give opportunities.