How good? I've met new players who were pretty good (no they were not undercover pretenders).
When one is certain of his victory, he already lost
Not necessarily, irrelevant and I was thinking about both teams being established clans. A clan consisting of 4 'avarage' players can easily beat a clan consisting of 4 1v1 champions. In other words: the latter team has individually strong players, but their teamplay is weaker.
Two or more strangers can meet for the first time and turn out to be compatible. Bye bye seasoned clan vets.
More seriously, though I'm not entirely kidding, the statement I reacted to is:
This is simply not true, no matter what both teams are composed of.
-Individually weaker, but better as a team.
-1 weakest link and 3 strong players that know about the weakest links weakness and adjust the battleplan, so the weakness becomes a strong point.
It's so easy to blame a team defeat on one guy, especially if this is a new player. It's a teamgame, not x 1v1. When the new guy didn't move in fast enough, then you were too far ahead.
I recognise the cases [cF]Adherbal is talking about. Again, adjust the battle plan to the weakest link and become a strong team. The 'noob' is your ally, not another enemy. It's no use to abandon hope, start fuming or criticise his army composition or even his moves during the battle. You can try some brief requests, don't overwhelm him with 'you must do this and that and such and so, NO, STOP, RUN, WAIT, LEFT, WHEEL RIGHT, Double Echelon!!!'. Keep it simple, those first impressions are overwhelming enough.
More than one game I've been in has been ruined by 'no-noobs' (no accidents or bad luck: just spoiled). I'am talking about breaking agreements, far less than gentleman behaviour, escaping, swearing, bad sports, after match public foyer spanking, blaming allies, gross exploiting of loopholes.
Bookmarks