Hi all (MP chat)

[Puzz3D]

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.

[Noir]

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.

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

[Togakure]

... 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.

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.