Hi all (MP chat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

My line almost held to the initial cavalry charge as i moved my 3 YC and 2 YS forward and they met them.. spear in hand. It was CBR's infantry attack and those cavarly that sneaked on the rear (which i could not hold as... i had no more units to do that) that did the damage as they circled my main line of Naginata's that had entered the fray and cleared the teppos i took behind to avoid the melee.

---

You had a very good army for countering this type of attack. I can tell you a better way to handle this situation. Don't advance any units. Put you naginata's in hold formation flanked by the two YS which can be set back a bit. Keep your YC in reserve to counter flanking cav. If there are too many enemy cav units, put the YC into a wide deployment and hold formation so that each one can block more then one enemy cav. Drop your teppo back behind your naginata line when you see the enemy charge, and put them in hold formation so that they won't skirmish backwards. If you have any swords, position them near your YS to protect them against enemy swords. Use your general to bolster your weakest point after everything is engaged. The longer you can hold the line, the more damage your teppo will inflict, and since you haven't advanced, the enemy's flank will be more exposed to your ally.

Yes that's true, i was lucky in that department. If i had plenty of shooters or weak swords it would have been really disastrous.

Thanks for the advice; in my view this is where instinctively knowing the match ups in every situation matters. To do promptly this kind of response i would need to be 100% tuned in with "this type of attack" as well as "the type of army" that i was playing.

This type of awareness is definitely linked to how much you need to manage at the same time at a particular phase of a battle and also on how concentrated you are i guess.

However it mostly relates to how much the gameplay has rubbed off on you IMO. As an example of this awareness i will say that in the previous session i was consciously snipping YC with SA at various games. In one game, i took down about 34 (with your help by CA) before they withdrew to safety and about 27 in another game (the occasions are completely different and the numbers included only for indication purposes). When i started diverting fire to one of CBR's YC with one of my teppo in the game we previously were discussing in order to do the same, he took them out of range as soon as the first of his cavalry man fell and had totally three casualties. This sort of "tuning" with match ups, that is knowing where to persist and where to avoid things and give way is a key element and needs practice, observation, conscious effort and time so as to be achieved IMO.

Noir

I would like to put forward something I am trying to work out for my self, let’s call it conceptual thinking for lack of any real title. It is really just specification driven imagination, developing a character idea for each unit type.

For example, the Samurai Archer’s range capabilities are not well employed against armor bearing units. The more armor, the less chance of making a kill, so looking at battle from the SA’s point of view, it is probably best to create target classifications.

First priority would be the light and unarmored swords, the No Dachi and Warrior Monks’s.

Next the light and medium armored, all other range units (SA, CA, PT, JT), and all spear units (YA, YS, YC).

And last, the heavily armored Naginata infantry and cavalry (NA, NC), and most of all the Heavy Cavalry, are best left to the Japanese Teppos for shooting (if at all).

I believe that the above is correct, but in any case you can see that personification of a particular unit type, and imagining things from their perspective, can be a way to understand match-up priorities.

For me this is very much a work in progress. I just though I would throw
It out there for whomever it might help :wink:

Hello,

That position doesn't leave great flanking options to either the defender or attacker. Sit still when you're shaved. My experience from STW classic and up is that immobile armies are tougher to beat than expected. Turn them on hold and be the anvil for your hammer allies.

It's interesting to know how to co-operate with allies in team games while taking into account the sort of army picked; for example i realised at some point that a Naginata heavy selection (with lots of cavalry to complement) has a natural anvil strength either for flanking with one's own cavalry or in a team manner (engaging enemy line and allowing the ally to act as the hammer). I often made the mistake to engage my monks or melee cavalry first (as they timely join melee), but the right thing to do is to engage the NA line and search for opportunities to flank or allow such opportunities to your allies(y).

Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.

MP is a very different beast than SP altogether and takes the game to the limit; its really a shame that it doesn't get the attention it deserves in TW as the game has great potential.

I understand it though from a sales point of view; a really good MP game like STW for example could do with engine improvements ignoring incarnations but the appeal would be more difficult to establish and elnarge in absolute terms compared with the graphical emphasis and variety that sells the SP game; few people have the nerve to endure the string of defeats and slaughters that is to be expected in the first few tens if not hundred battles. Most probably want a hostorical/war "escapade" on their own terms and time.

Its also difficult in the interpersonal level as without a group that makes you feel at home and allow you to slowly improve, its easy to feel lost.

However i have to say that once you "taste blood" its hard to go back; MP battles are many times more interesting, satisfying and fun even to watch than SP battles that are repetitive and limited to the AI's capabilities. Bugs and misbalances though hurt the MP game badly as does an innapropriate pace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Team coordination is essential and builds up slowly by reckognizing the allie's army selection, playstyle and dynamic conditions of the game at hand.

---

Teams games bring an additional strategic layer to the gameplay. At the highest level, army composition and playing style become subject to the strategic plan, and players can be assigned starting positions that allow them to make good use of their individual skills in the execution of the battleplan. However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D
However, players must master basic tactics before the teamgames can be played at this strategic level. The strategic plan will likely fail if the team members haven't mastered basic tactical play, and at the very least, tactical errors on either side rob a battle of theoretical value when evaluating a particular strategy.

---

Very true

I thought I'd commend the group on some very fun games this weekend. Lots of interesting things going on in the replays.

Shout out to my team m8s in various games: those were particularly fun games sweeping attacker left in 4v4 with a lot of cav, followed up rapidly by infantry engagement, no dilly-dallying. You guys were right there, and it ROCKED. :thrasher:

There were moments when I felt like I was playing with my old wingm8, and I can give no higher compliment than that. Great fun, all.

I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.

---

Did you have a strategy?
Just curious, because we had none. We didn't even chat.
I'm beginning to think that we should take the 2 or 3 extra minutes to communicate some basic plan before the game starts. :wink:
I watched the replay of the 4v4 and I think the defenders made two mistakes. First, it would've been better if Tosa had deployed his teppos in front of the forest. The way they were positioned they couldn't open fire on Masamune who had deployed very foward. I don't know if that would've been within Tosa's zone, though.
Secondly, I hesitated too long to join Tosa in that situation. By that time, Fool had joined Masamunes attack and there were too many enemy units for us to defeat. In the end we were tripled on that flank. Masamune's initial attack was quite bold and I think if he didn't have Fool coming right behind him we probably would've repelled that charge.
I'm still fretting about the horrible mistakes I made that evening. In the first game I clearly defeated myself.

R'as

Strategy before a game consisted of a few words during deployment: attack right, attack left. etc., nothing specific.

That several of the coordinated attack openings went well overall was what delighted me, and why I said it was beginning to feel like I was playing with my old wingm8. Several of the attacks felt intuitive--flowing with the events that were occuring. Support was lent by two other armies, and coordination of arrival at the attack line was good. Timing of infantry support, and third-party cav support, was good. Use of mass to affect morale was good. Each team m8 did well in complimenting the actions of the others, and the attacks were effective, though we had only a very simple strategy.

There was one point in a game where I was in Attacker Front Left position and the strategy was attack left. I advanced but was taking too long, caught up in a shoot out. A senior team m8 suggested I attack soon, etc., so I did, but long after the action started on the right. I said I would need assistance, and was assured, so we were communicating a little during battles. Not often though. It was funny watching the replay of that game, all hell breaking loose on the far right side (Yuuki and Tosa attacked the Attacker Right position, KensaiSylvan's army, and I'm stuck in a shoot out with well-positioned opponents).

Deployment position is obviously a crucial part of battle strategy, particularly for attackers. I set up out front in a couple, but had communicated to team m8s, who assured support. I was also prepared at opening to do any of a number of things. The starting position of Attacker Left Front in 4v4 is a "hotseat" position; I play it better aggressively than defensively provided I have effective support from Center and Back Left.

I've been paying attention to how each of us plays in the replays. I'm beginning to get a sense of how much support one will provide given their position on the field, how much support they might require given their position on the field, etc.. How fast and discerning, how quick to respond, accuracy of response, the nature of judgment. I wouldn't set up far front if I knew that the army behind and to the right of me weren't likely to respond effectively, or if there were terrain features that would prevent response. Or if my enemy was Yuuki (*shakes fist at Yuuki*).

Don't let the tough games get ya down. I've had my fair share, ramping up to SW and how it plays. I sat out on the end of several of those games, my army wiped out. I think a key is to try new things. Analysis is cool; application is key.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

I've been paying attention to how each of us plays in the replays. I'm beginning to get a sense of how much support one will provide given their position on the field, how much support they might require given their position on the field, etc.. How fast and discerning, how quick to respond, accuracy of response, the nature of judgment. I wouldn't set up far front if I knew that the army behind and to the right of me weren't likely to respond effectively, or if there were terrain features that would prevent response. Or if my enemy was Yuuki (*shakes fist at Yuuki*).

Don't let the tough games get ya down. I've had my fair share, ramping up to SW and how it plays. I sat out on the end of several of those games, my army wiped out. I think a key is to try new things. Analysis is cool; application is key.

---

No, I'm not down, just a bit angry about my own mistakes. But that's okay.
I've watched the replays of the three games I had and it wasn't as bad as I first thought. Of course, I faced you three times and I lost three times but I know what I did wrong and that's most important to me.
Next time I'll crush you. I hope you don't mind being my personal nemesis? (you devil :laugh4: )

:bow:

R'as

P.S.: Anyway.....my taisho won that 4v4 after single handedly killing Yuuki's taisho and hatamoto. Noobs! :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R'as al Ghul

...
I've watched the replays of the three games I had and it wasn't as bad as I first thought. Of course, I faced you three times and I lost three times but I know what I did wrong and that's most important to me.
Next time I'll crush you. I hope you don't mind being my personal nemesis? (you devil :laugh4: ) ...

:bow:

R'as

P.S.: Anyway.....my taisho won that 4v4 after single handedly killing Yuuki's taisho and hatamoto. Noobs! :yes:

---

Now That's the spirit! :devil:

You give me a good game every time R'as, and have knocked me off my horse on several occasions, and will again many times, I'm sure. Remember the week before? That was a great back and forth cat-n-mouse exchange, and you ended up chasing me off the field.

I know how you feel--my nemesis is this Sashimi Kojiro guy. You want to get frustrated? Play that ... :stwmean: in ten 1v1s in a row, and see how you feel afterward. I would get SO FRUSTRATED. But I learned a lot playing against him. I had to get very creative to achieve much of anything. He knew responses to all the "normal" things and could execute them near-perfectly with consistency--and did so with this casual matter-of-fact indifference that drove me frikkin' bonkers. I had to come up with unexpected things, and ones that worked. He must have thought I was insane given some of the things I tried. When I did manage to win a game against him--as much as I hate to admit it--it made me feel really good. That insufferably excellent dweeb gets my MP Nemesis of the First TW Decade award, hands down. But you know ... for every good player out there, there's another who's better.

The replays reveal so much that I don't notice in game. Yes indeed, anything could have happened in a great many situations. Any one of them could have easily gone the other way. Little things can make big differences.

When I find myself cranky after a game because of my perceived crappy performance, I remind myself that this is team play in MP--it isn't all up to me. I can do all the "right" things; it doesn't mean squat if my opponents team better than we do, or my team doesn't gel well in a particular game. If I made mistakes, well, so does everyone else at one point or another. It happens. So I just shrug it off and focus on the next game. Sucks a bit when it happens in a bunch of games in one day. But, it happens. There are some really good days too.

I think several of the victories happened because I was correctly guessing what CBR would do in response to what I did, and AsanoRin too (as team mates). In the game with Fool, I didn't do as well because I hesitated, not sure what Fool would do with all those cav, and with his infantry, which was still way behind us. In a complete attack like that, cav is not enough. Success rides on the correct timing of attack waves, unit match-ups, and how well or not the opponents respond, etc.. I've noticed even the Great Yuuki-sama holding units back, or withdrawing from a risky charge, when in my mind, had he followed through. and committed those reserves, the results would have made a big difference. I say if you're going to attack, GO FOR IT. I've seen other teams in 4v4 absolutely CRUSH (and I mean CRUSH) opponents in such a superb coordinated attack that two attacked players were out within a few minutes--attacking and defending (when the defenders chose to attack as their initial strategy). It's a huge glory feeling to pull this off, and a week-long sulk to be hit by it. Had a number of those.

Earlier I did a lot of ribbing about those who emphasize the numbers. I didn't do that just to annoy peeps. It drew out responses that clarified much more specifically why they felt how they did. I consider and adjust. Changes in unit choices has resulted in a dramatic increase in average kills for me over the last couple of sessions. Yuuki made a simple but oh-so-true point that each player really needs to achieve a certain number of kills or it becomes difficult for his team to make up the deficit and win the game. In most of the battles last weekend, I had very little left during End Game--but I felt I'd done a decent job, damaging and perhaps demoralizing opponents. I had my hata left in some of them, and so could run around with the other generals during the final mop up. That was fun.

Your respect and candor honor me, thank you :bow:. Please crush me as best you can; I ever desire an opponent's best game. You can count on me to give you mine. I do enjoy teaming with you too ... I like having lots of cav on my side :yes:

In an ideal TW MP team game, I don't want to have to discuss much strategy at the onset--just a general intent, subject to change at any time given unexpected developments, and perhaps some stated projections of what might happen and how we adjust if such events occur. I want to achieve "no mind" partnership with good players on the battlefield, where talk is rarely needed; where familiarity, intuition, and coordinated action is such that the left hand knows what the right, and feet, will do--more "reflex" than action--where we don't really think about it, just do it. I have had moments like this in STW MP with my wingm8 Anskar, and man ... do I hunger for it again. This particular TW "high" satisfies like no other MP game. A distant second is, of course, collecting as many enemy heads as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

Now That's the spirit! :devil:

You give me a good game every time R'as, and have knocked me off my horse on several occasions, and will again many times, I'm sure. Remember the week before? That was a great back and forth cat-n-mouse exchange, and you ended up chasing me off the field.

---

:bow: I need to review that game to boost morale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

I know how you feel--my nemesis is this Sashimi Kojiro guy. You want to get frustrated? Play that ... :stwmean: in ten 1v1s in a row, and see how you feel afterward. I would get SO FRUSTRATED. [..] When I did manage to win a game against him--as much as I hate to admit it--it made me feel really good. That insufferably excellent dweeb gets my MP Nemesis of the First TW Decade award, hands down. But you know ... for every good player out there, there's another who's better.

---

I know Sasaki Kojiro/Mimesaka Akechi/Shinano and I played him many times. An exceptional player, I think he even won the "Most feared player" award. I once managed to defeat him with nifty gunwork, as he said to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Masamune

Your respect and candor honor me, thank you :bow:. Please crush me as best you can; I ever desire an opponent's best game. You can count on me to give you mine. I do enjoy teaming with you too ... I like having lots of cav on my side :yes:

---

I'll sure try my best. :charge:
I also enjoy teaming with you and I'm glad you take my post as intended, as a friendly....."Could you please remove your neck guard so that I can cut off your head?" :grin2:
Looking forward to future matches.

:bow:

R'as

P.S.: Love your haiku. I didn't realise that you've changed it.

Thanks for the compliment on my haiku. I change it from time to time, depending on my mood. This one just popped out when I was replying to your post. I wrote the previous one after looking in on my Goddaughter as she slept. She was my candle in a time of darkness and despair.

Just to be sure no one misunderstands: Sasaki was the first person I got to know here at the Org, and the only person I've met in person. I make fun of his name in humor only.

Hey Tosa,

You still need to finish that third 1v1 with me.

Well, if you guys can tell your stories, I will to :2thumbsup:

Last Time I played Beta 8 Regulary, I played TOsa twice in a 1v1. THe First game, we fought on a,hmmmm,don't remember what map, got the replay though. on a hilly/forest map. Ironically, he had the forest/hill, and I was attacking :yes:

But he move down a bit, but I told him to stay on the hill, I want and needed a challage. so I went, musket fight,etc... But I sent my army over to a somewhat hiller part, so my musket won't be at a complete dis-advantage. I also had 1 foot archer unit and 1 HA, and my HA routed after I attacked of his muskets. Then I him with the HA and expose some of his units. Then I prounce on it. but he lured my guys back just a bit up the hill, mabye that was his plan all along, and even into the forest, where I discovered a bigger force.

"Uh Oh!", then we fought. I started to rout his cav on his left flank I think, then my right flank started to fail, and I routed.


2nd game, we played on a flatland map, then has a little ditch in the middle...

TOsa put his army up against the line, going to rush.

"son of a" I thought "I'm in touble"

so I hurried and got my muskets ready. I purosuly had 1 unit of archers (foot) all the right on my right flank, instead of normal closeby flank. THen he rush and slam into me. I was barley holding on, but my archers and such I flank pr partialy flank TOsa guys, so they could fire easily into his guys. then his Gen, a Hamoto, snuck around my flank. THen I send my Hamoto and killed his gen, and sent a yari after mine, only to have it get destroyed, and his army getted routed at the right time. Any longer and I would have been a particular word that starts with a F :laugh4: .



Good 1v1's. Only ones I fought. I had so Many Team games on Beta7/8 with them, (few on Beta 8 that worked for me, but still :yes: ) the only ones I could tell a story about is my first 2 3v3's, which I won, but hm, can't really tell them all.


I will return this SUnday!! :yes:

Hello {BHC}KingWarman888,

There's a 3rd?

We can play it this Sunday?

yup there's a 3rd. This SUnday will be a excellet Time Tosa :-).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzz3D
I thought the games on Sunday demonstrated that poor strategy in 4v4 battles cannot be offset by good tactics.

---

Agree on that despite being present in 3 games only. Lots of predisposition for immediate offense without it being always the best option, bad initial deployment and miscommunication in the sense that play some times didn't consider ally position.

In 3v3's and above its crucial to play with the others and the other's actions and relative position in mind as doublings and triplings are way more effective than in 2v2's that ally communication lines are shorter and more immediate IMO.

I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.

Noir

---

I agrree with you Noir
I was going to make this same suggestion next Sunday in the SamWars Foyer.
After having played a few games now and watched a few replays, I have also noticed the trend that certain players seem to ally with the same players each game.

Not to compare with M2TW but, when a group of us played we made a point of playing with anyone regardless of skill levels. To clarify, a lot of the players were 'new' to the game so we tended to play 50-50 teaming to allow others to get a 'fairer' game.
I hope this reads as I write it. No offence intended.

The last three 4v4s I played in last weekend, the teams were:


Attackers: CBR – Yuuki – Tomi – Masa

Defenders: Nomad – Fool – Tosa – Rin


Attackers: CBR – Rin – Sil – Masa

Defenders: Nomad – Yuuki – Tomi – Tosa


Attackers: CBR – Tomi – Tosa – Masa

Defenders: Nomad – Sil – Yuuki – Rin


There does seem to be a bit of a pattern, but I think when you see who won, it’s importance fades a little.

Wining teams:

Nomad – Fool – Tosa – Rin

CBR – Rin – Sil – Masa

CBR – Tomi – Tosa – Masa


I do think we could mix it up a bit more, but don’t believe that any particular team insures a win.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tomisama
I do think we could mix it up a bit more, but don’t believe that any particular team insures a win.

---

Its not about a particular set of team winning, its about the team with the less experienced players playing with leadership/strategy suggestions from the more experienced players that will improve the quality of the games and their play.

To give an example in a 3v3 sometime ago Masamune&CBR&Fool vs Rin&Tomisama&Ra's Tosa who was on our team as observer directed my self to attack at the right moment on the flank. It was the best action, but i doubt that i would have come with it on my own and execute it at the right time.

In other games, when experienced players holding center - with their play and suggestions, flank player performance appears better to an observer when less experienced players take on the center position. I doubt that i for example play much better or much worse, it seems to me that its the team play that makes it look different.

A second example is one of the 4v4 of last weekend, Rin&KensaiSilvan&Jochi&Yuuki vs Tosa&CBR&Masamune&Tomisama.

I called out on Silvan in 3 instances on the team channel to withdraw in the hills back that would place us closer to our allies and closer between ourselves. Silvan however goaded me on to attack the lines in front of us and i supported his action as it would be foolish to leave him vulnerable to counter attacks even though we were on the defensive and it made no sense at all. After that we further got separated from our allies and each other and we ended up in a hill each.

It turned out that in the mean time Jochi and Yuuki got tripled and then me and Silvan got doubled separately. Not a very fun game for our allies and ourselves too of course, no matter how well you play on the tactical side. By the time Jochi and Yuuki "scolded us" it was too late.

Had we been deployed say like this: Yuuki - Rin - Jochi - KensaiSilvan then i am positive that the team would play with more coherence; experienced players will always give the right tone whenever i play with/next to them. Offensives and defensives are coordinated and timed rather than individual and so more effective - games get on the line instead of "tripling - doubling - chase routers - next"

This is not a "weakness" plead; in 2v2 games i am sure of myself giving a solid challenge, but in 3v3 and 4v4 the effectiveness of doubling is a few powers up more important and so strategy is essential. I can't play for everyone as the team can't play for me.

There is quite some offensive play lately, and i think that it succeeds so effectively because there are many new players that have little idea how to cooperate in the strategic level as a team with their allies against that. I am certainly one of them.

Mixing the experienced players between teams and in deployment in between the same team should solve part of that.

In my view that will make the games really a level up in terms of challenge and enjoyability.

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

I suggest to distribute evenly experienced players in teams so in a 4v4 say, there are 2 experienced players in each team in most games (they can be different every time so the line up changes). 4v4's that line a team with 3 exerienced players vs a team with 1 can be a bit one sided i feel.

---

Style of play is also a factor. For instance, if a player likes to attack quickly in a 2v2 and his ally can assists it can work fine. However, put that same player in a 4v4 and a quick attack will most likely fail even if the adjacent ally assists because the two attackers will run into 3 defending armies. The same kind of thing happens if a player becomes too isolated from his allies either when he moves away from his allies or his allies move away from him. The unit morale is high enough that some separation of armies is possible, but there is a limit beyond which you can't help an ally because he'll be gone by the time you get there.

Designating teams is not going to improve the strategy used in team games. I observed the situations I described in 4v4 team games that did have 2 experienced players on each side. I raised the issue to point out that improvements could be made in the area of team strategy in these large games. We don't stack teams in these games, and we don't have a lot of experience in large team games using Samurai Wars. If occasionally a team is composed of players who all cooperate well, then it's an opportunity to see the kind of team play that can be achieved.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzz3D
Designating teams is not going to improve the strategy used in team games. I observed the situations I described in 4v4 team games that did have 2 experienced players on each side.

---

It didn't have them distributed along the length of the line. I try to make a point on that in the post above. Also "designated" teams is not what i am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Puzz3D
We don't stack teams in these games, and we don't have a lot of experience in large team games using Samurai Wars. If occasionally a team is composed of players who all cooperate well, then it's an opportunity to see the kind of team play that can be achieved.

---

Agreed, however, i have a feeling that in many 4v4's in particular and quite a few 3v3's good cooperation is a function of how things turned out on that particular game rather than conscious skillful blending with the co-players and the situation. The latter is present way less often IMO.

The point i try to make is that if a player can "balance" his style between offence, defense and teamplay choosing instinctively when its appropriate to apply each then he is experienced - when he applies the same trend all the time then in my perspective cannot be called "experienced".

What you call "style" in your post should be adjustable in order to match the circumstances. I have observed this trend in the more experienced players in the group. They act when a gap is presenting itself, they don't act because they like a gap to be present, if you know what i mean.

This sort of play can make or break team game. Its easy to observe as far as i am concerned that its presence or absence makes the difference between win and loss.

Noir

This was a long time writing and several have since posted. I started this response after the posts by Noir and Jochi.

Regarding how players end up in teams: unbalanced games happen. Obviously, the stagger of entry into game setup affects where people end up. Some like to attack and will gravitate there; others like to defend, or feel more comfortable defending. This can seem like players gravitating to other players. It's often just preference of game role. I like to attack, for example.

Sometimes, like in the last game last weekend, a clan will ask to team together. I think this is fine, much better than it usually was in VI, where a clan teamed together all the time and just rolled opposition again and again. I'm glad that is not the norm here in SW.

Some players aren't here for fun alone. I come to have fun, but I have an agenda--to develop my SW MP tactical skills (teaming)--and to do that as rapidly as I can. If I see someone whose play style compliments mine during set up, I will gravitate towards that person's team if the stagger order permits. Playing with that person allows me to apply what I learned playing with them before. I can try things learned from watching the replays. I will also avoid players who have been consistently contrary, or hesistant, or unsupportive; we simply see things differently, and that doesn't make for a good team most of the time, because egos interfere with perception, evaluation, decision, and action. I will play a game, maybe two, under these conditions, but more would be a waste of my time.

Sometimes my choice of which side to go to is affected by whom I want to oppose. Some players are particularly effective against my style of play and make for challenging opponents. I like going up against Yuuki for this reason. It guarantees a work out.

By whose judgment would who is "experienced" and who is not be determined? This is sticky. The group's judgment? This is a recipe for argument and ego contests. This cannot be effectively managed by trying to systematically determine who plays with who ahead of time.

If someone has an issue in how teams fall out, say something. The group can discuss specific issues as they arise.

Two "experienced" players don't always compliment each other's style of play. I have been inclined in the past to avoid certain very good players because our styles of play, and preferred strategy, differed consistently. This one tends towards cautiousness and enjoys the long game; this one is aggressive and strives for the coordinated sweep and faster, more glorious victory. This one is magnanimous in supporting his flankers, even to the point of putting himself at risk; this one does his own thing because he disagrees with what others think should be done most of the time. This one tries to balance it all, and is effective half of the time.

Players who end up on a team not having teamed much together previously tend to be tentative, which can translate into hesitance, and the ego factor is amplified in regard to just about every team issue. It can be difficult to reach a group decision, and the bond of assured support is not there, limiting choices on the field.

Experienced players, in my book, are those that take these things into consideration, balance their egos with those of their team m8s, determine Command and intent, support it with skillful action, and adapt effectively to situations as they arise--always working toward a state of intuitive response with each other. They recognize each others' style and tendencies, capitalize on each others' strengths, and bolster weaknesses. If not in Command and intent has been established, they execute with zeal, without question. They balance opportunity with risk, keeping the whole team and Victory in mind.

One of the most frustrating aspects of teaming with my former clan m8s was that Command was rarely taken and Decision rarely reached during placement and at the onset of the game. There were often a lot of alternatives considered, but no intent established by someone in Command. They are all great players, but we struggled constantly with coordination of attack and defense. Individual skill yielded more victories than teamplay in the majority of games I played with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

... The point i try to make is that if a player can "balance" his style between offence, defense and teamplay choosing instinctively when its appropriate to apply each then he is experienced - when he applies the same trend all the time then in my perspective cannot be called "experienced". ...

---

Heh, what you call trend, I call practice. Bruce Lee once said something like: I fear a man who has practiced one kick ten thousand times, over a man who practices ten tousand kicks one time. Repetition with adaptation brings excellence--a dozen years of serious classical piano training and achievement helped me to recognize this a long time ago.

Quote:

---

What you call "style" in your post should be adjustable in order to match the circumstances. I have observed this trend in the more experienced players in the group. They act when a gap is presenting itself, they don't act because they like a gap to be present, if you know what i mean.

---

Some wait for opportunities. Some create them.

Quote:

---

Some players aren't here for fun alone. I come to have fun, but I have an agenda--to develop my SW MP tactical skills (teaming)--and to do that as rapidly as I can. If I see someone whose play style compliments mine during set up, I will gravitate towards that person's team if the stagger order permits. Playing with that person allows me to apply what I learned playing with them before. I can try things learned from watching the replays. I will also avoid players who have been consistently contrary, or hesistant, or unsupportive; we simply see things differently, and that doesn't make for a good team most of the time, because egos interfere with perception, evaluation, decision, and action. I will play a game, maybe two, under these conditions, but more would be a waste of my time.

---

Thanks for clearing that up

Quote:

---

By whose judgment would who is "experienced" and who is not be determined? This is sticky. The group's judgment? This is a recipe for argument and ego contests.

---

Yuuki had little trouble locating "experienced" players among the group in the above post. So i guess this is sticky indeed, as also is your very long asnwer to a a suggestion and one that seems to be getting nowehere nonetheless.

Since however you declare publicly that you systematically choose allies and opponents as to be able to repeat succesfully and with less frutration your playstyle and also that you are not playing for fun - then that does it for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

... and also that you are not playing for fun -...

---

I did not say this.

"Does it for you?" I'm surprised at this anger. I play to have fun while forwarding my skill development as a team player with focus and energy. You have "heard" what you have wanted to hear in what I wrote.

And this is quite a twist:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Since however you declare publicly that you systematically choose allies and opponents as to be able to repeat succesfully and with less frutration your playstyle and also that you are not playing for fun - then that does it for me.

---

You are publicly declaring your interpretation of what I wrote, not what I wrote. Do take everything in my post in context, and please don't impute that I said something when it is very clear I didn't.

Then, is it time to start the ranking system up?

Knowing who has achieved superior results on the battlefield might give them a greater voice in team coordination.

It will also allow us to balance teams with a little more evenness when possible.

I believe the last proposal was for kills minus losses (total killed and captured) on a ten level point scale, 100 to 1000 Points (white belt to black belt respectively).

We could also add a stripe system to show years of service (gold bands).

Would this help?


Observation Comment:

We are at an evolutionary stage of Samurai Warlords community development. The need to consider a broader scope of variables is now “necessary”, as it will be required by your team mates. You must be aware of “everything” concerning a particular battle, and act appropriately to each individual situation. And every battle must be fought as if it were the only battle ever to be fought. This is truly the way of the Samurai…


Edit : Edit: (Sorry) Make that 100 (and below) white, 200 yellow, 300 orange, 400 violet, 500 green, 600 blue, 700 brown, 800 red, 900 (and above) black.

I think we just need to meet up on Sunday, join games, work out any issues, play, play well and have fun, and then do it again. One weekend of solid play by a few players and there's this stuff. Take it to the field, where it belongs. Focus on what you do as a player, not what someone else does or doesn't do.

Tomisama, with all due respect, I think a ranking system is premature at this point. There are tensions already, so inducing more competition doesn't make a lot of sense. Your comments on focus are spot on.