Some moves and shakes

yes, thats right, i didnt meant its exactly the same. On the CA blog is the example shown. Your right.

My point, to clarify it, you get 4 1v1 a lot quicker done, as a 4v4. While you could be able to win the 4v4 quick, to get it setup and find another 4v4 team will take time.
It might be best ratio, if you take the bonuses in, to play 2v2. There will be only clans who will run into the 3v3 or 4v4 games, while there will be a lot more ronins out.

You have one small mistake, as far i did read, only one will get the extra point of clan mate who participate.
At least on the blog there is pointed out, the max of 83 points.

So it would be like this: 20+20+20+20 and 1+1+1 (for the 3 other guys) = 83pts in total.
Still, it would be 3 more than playing 4 times 1v1. Just not enough imo to make 4v4 really worth to play for the points.

Ah right. Thought you meant micromanagment with MM. :)

You know what also would be annoying? As the participating clans in the mp campaign seems to get spread out across different setups, when as a serious clan you end up facing lots of 1 man clans on your map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kocmoc

yes, thats right, i didnt meant its exactly the same. On the CA blog is the example shown. Your right.

My point, to clarify it, you get 4 1v1 a lot quicker done, as a 4v4. While you could be able to win the 4v4 quick, to get it setup and find another 4v4 team will take time.
It might be best ratio, if you take the bonuses in, to play 2v2. There will be only clans who will run into the 3v3 or 4v4 games, while there will be a lot more ronins out.

You have one small mistake, as far i did read, only one will get the extra point of clan mate who participate.
At least on the blog there is pointed out, the max of 83 points.

So it would be like this: 20+20+20+20 and 1+1+1 (for the 3 other guys) = 83pts in total.
Still, it would be 3 more than playing 4 times 1v1. Just not enough imo to make 4v4 really worth to play for the points.

---

Yes, your right my 4+4+4+4 was wrong. However, I think that you can include yourself in the +1. In the Official example given in a 3vs3 the team got 1+1+1.

(20+20+20)+(5+5+5)+(1+1+1)+5=83) This was cut and pasted from the Official Blog. Here the first cell containing the 20's are for Victory. 2nd cell is for using retainers. Last cell is for playing 3v3 with Clan Mates. So for a 4v4 it would be (1+1+1+1).

However, on second look I think your initial thoughts might be correct given certain conditions. If you look the +5 for Victory in Province Adjacent to Controlled Province Bonus is only given ONCE to the entire team.

So 4 x (1vs1) with that Bonus:

(20 + 5) + (20 + 5) + (20 + 5) + (20 + 5) = 100 points

1 x (4vs4) with Adjacent Bonus:

(20 + 20 + 20 + 20) + (1 + 1 +1 + 1) + 5 = 84 points

So for battles Adjacent to Provinces a Clan already controls then 1vs1 are better. (Or I may be wrong, Kocmoc can you check my math and theory?)

yeah, 1 to each play, but it should be 89 in total ( you forgot the +5) Else the maths seems correct to me.

At least i would understand it this way. In this case its even worser i initially thought, it turns out to be less effective to play in teams, not just about the lack of teams, more time spent, also in terms of points you gain.

unless we made some mistake somewhere. Amazing...

This 'old fella' will be there amongst you. Look for ^Jochi Khan^

Quite a few old faces appearing now, looks good. I'll just say Hi to you all saves typing all the names.

Well the BIG problem is u can fight till ur eyes bleed and losses dont make any difference, so the clan that has the most players will have a big advantage especially as theres no limit on the amount of games played either :( We could see an mmo type situation with massive clans with no lives dominating even with really poor win ratios and being unable to beat other clans in the campaign in battle yet winning the campaign jsut due to pure unrestricted numbers.

if there is no restriction on the moves you can do with the army marker/games you can play, then it seems this is the case. I am wondering if this is intentional, as it may as well be.

From a player's perspective skill should be awarded and so the win/loss ratio that many bring up is important, but from a developer perspetive, maybe a MMO situation is actually the aim, hence all the character customisation and acquiring skills options.

If that is the case, then it will be quite unlikely that this will change.

In Dragon Age 2 there are lots of moves and shaking trickes.