| 1 |
I
would
dispute
commshare
is
the
killer
app
for
teams.
Case
in
point:
last
clanwars.
Advent
tried
to
do
it
with
one
big
merged
team.
We
stepped
on
each
others'
toes,
leading
to
chaos
and
defeat
because
we
hadn't
worked
out
how
to
coordinate
ourselves.
|
1 |
I
would
dispute
commshare
is
the
killer
app
for
teams.
Case
in
point:
last
clanwars.
Advent
tried
to
do
it
with
one
big
merged
team.
We
stepped
on
each
others'
toes,
leading
to
chaos
and
defeat
because
we
hadn't
worked
out
how
to
coordinate
ourselves
(
and
with
that
many
players
I
have
doubts
we
should
or
even
could)
.
If
only
one
or
two
in
a
team
of
10
are
sharing,
what
is
the
actual
percentage
resource
advantage
accruing
to
say,
the
blue
squadded
with
a
yellow
vs
the
basic
communism
everyone
else
is
part
of?
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
It is worth noting that in the mostly successful set of games I played today, the Advent stack never fully shared.
|
3 |
It is worth noting that in the mostly successful set of games I played today, the Advent stack never fully shared.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
I have however protested in the past the presence of squads in matchmaker in particular and I can sympathise with the concern that a large stack (like for instance the 4-6 Adventstack rocking around this evening) inevitably limits the choices for team building. That means less chance of salvation by reshuffled teams if the last game was a farce and the problem does get worse the bigger the stack becomes. The ideal solution is more players for more rooms so that if the stack does reach an oppressive level, others can decamp forcing the stack to either break up or play by itself. That though is the magic bullet solution and there are no wizards.
|
5 |
I have however protested in the past the presence of squads in matchmaker in particular and I can sympathise with the concern that a large stack (like for instance the 4-6 Adventstack rocking around this evening) inevitably limits the choices for team building. That means less chance of salvation by reshuffled teams if the last game was a farce and the problem does get worse the bigger the stack becomes. The ideal solution is more players for more rooms so that if the stack does reach an oppressive level, others can decamp forcing the stack to either break up or play by itself. That though is the magic bullet solution and there are no wizards.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
That said, I found the remarks in the conversation log posted regarding lack of individual utility when the clanstack is in play rather odd and contrary to my own experience. One of the reasons I finally joined the dark side was frustration over how crap pots felt lately (with or without significant clanstacks present). Why did I think they were crap? Because I lacked utility. No matter how well I played, my impact on the game felt minimal. Too much effort is expended in random directions, diluting its impact. At least with a clanstack on hand playing to win I could be more confident that even if I didn't lead the glorious charge, what actions I could take served a purpose. In the best case, I might pin down enough assets that nothing could be diverted to deal with the clan push. In the next base case, I lose, but do so slowly enough that the clan can overcome its opposition and win before I'm completely KOed.
|
7 |
That said, I found the remarks in the conversation log posted regarding lack of individual utility when the clanstack is in play rather odd and contrary to my own experience. One of the reasons I finally joined the dark side was frustration over how crap pots felt lately (with or without significant clanstacks present). Why did I think they were crap? Because I lacked utility. No matter how well I played, my impact on the game felt minimal. Too much effort is expended in random directions, diluting its impact. At least with a clanstack on hand playing to win I could be more confident that even if I didn't lead the glorious charge, what actions I could take served a purpose. In the best case, I might pin down enough assets that nothing could be diverted to deal with the clan push. In the next base case, I lose, but do so slowly enough that the clan can overcome its opposition and win before I'm completely KOed.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
On the other hand, if there is no coordinated clan stack, then the odds of a breakthrough occurring anywhere are diminished because the teamwork advantage can't be readily exercised. It's just pot luck that some confluence of circumstances occurs which is so significant even unherdable cats can utilise it (or both teams have been wasting so much effort and resources that someone has time to build a super).
|
9 |
On the other hand, if there is no coordinated clan stack, then the odds of a breakthrough occurring anywhere are diminished because the teamwork advantage can't be readily exercised. It's just pot luck that some confluence of circumstances occurs which is so significant even unherdable cats can utilise it (or both teams have been wasting so much effort and resources that someone has time to build a super).
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
The observations regarding maintenance and strategic actions are interesting albeit they are really a variation on the straightforward truth that victory in a team game is about finding a winning balance of offence and defence (or perhaps finding the least bad balance). However, I feel the overall thrust of the analysis is flawed, particularly when it comes to larger stacks. The moment the stack makes a considerable portion of the team, it has to take responsibility for a large portion of the battlefield. In all the Advent games I participated in this evening, we assigned ourselves a territorial objective and in some cases discussed specific tactics, though most of the time we simply tried to pick complementary factories. For instance in @b904732 @Shaman thought it was likely that the other team would push mid with comms and wanted to cook them with Scorchers. This prompted me to offer spider fac to add widows to the mix so comms would be helpless (though the first one ended up walking into an Ogre while I wasn't looking so nothing came of it).
|
11 |
The observations regarding maintenance and strategic actions are interesting albeit they are really a variation on the straightforward truth that victory in a team game is about finding a winning balance of offence and defence (or perhaps finding the least bad balance). However, I feel the overall thrust of the analysis is flawed, particularly when it comes to larger stacks. The moment the stack makes a considerable portion of the team, it has to take responsibility for a large portion of the battlefield. In all the Advent games I participated in this evening, we assigned ourselves a territorial objective and in some cases discussed specific tactics, though most of the time we simply tried to pick complementary factories. For instance in @b904732 @Shaman thought it was likely that the other team would push mid with comms and wanted to cook them with Scorchers. This prompted me to offer spider fac to add widows to the mix so comms would be helpless (though the first one ended up walking into an Ogre while I wasn't looking so nothing came of it).
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
Interestingly, the one game out of 5 I played that we lost ( @b904702 ) was one where we over-concentrated to push mid, leaving sea and south too weak. Frantically trying to repivot our resources to support north and south simply delayed the end.
|
13 |
Interestingly, the one game out of 5 I played that we lost ( @b904702 ) was one where we over-concentrated to push mid, leaving sea and south too weak. Frantically trying to repivot our resources to support north and south simply delayed the end.
|
| 14 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
| 15 |
In other words, all we did was play the game the way it's meant to be played: work as a team to take and hold ground. No gimmicks. We could just talk to each other more easily while doing so and concentrate resources where needed more easily.
|
15 |
In other words, all we did was play the game the way it's meant to be played: work as a team to take and hold ground. No gimmicks. We could just talk to each other more easily while doing so and concentrate resources where needed more easily.
|
| 16 |
\n
|
16 |
\n
|
| 17 |
There is scope for a clanstack to coordinate more with team and it should be incumbent on the stack to do it since we're already the coordinated ones. In the last of the games I played this evening, I communicated it was Advent's intention to seize the east which gave the rest of the team the opportunity to direct their resources elsewhere. If the other team can't muster up enough coordination to contest the clan stack, well, I can't help that save by choosing to accept an inferior personal experience (by leaving the stack and becoming just another freelance lobster). I've had no choice but to accept an inferior offering to what I want to play most of the time I have been playing (at least a lobsterpot is still better than most of the alternatives on the market).
|
17 |
There is scope for a clanstack to coordinate more with team and it should be incumbent on the stack to do it since we're already the coordinated ones. In the last of the games I played this evening, I communicated it was Advent's intention to seize the east which gave the rest of the team the opportunity to direct their resources elsewhere. If the other team can't muster up enough coordination to contest the clan stack, well, I can't help that save by choosing to accept an inferior personal experience (by leaving the stack and becoming just another freelance lobster). I've had no choice but to accept an inferior offering to what I want to play most of the time I have been playing (at least a lobsterpot is still better than most of the alternatives on the market).
|
Disable Squading in PUG games