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
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.
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.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.
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
Bookmarks