Curse

Tidewater Springs · May 18, 2009, 11:46 PM // 23:46

First post comes in the form of a question, yay :3

Would you rather have 4 teams of 3 players capping, or 3 teams of 4 players capping?

lewis91 · May 19, 2009, 12:20 AM // 00:20

3 of 4.

4 because that provides the chance of a balanced team.

Wish Swiftdeath · May 19, 2009, 12:40 AM // 00:40

4 caps much much faster than 3 and is less likely to be wiped.

Can't believe people actually consider running 3 people...

Onion Guy · May 19, 2009, 12:43 AM // 00:43

Talking about AB? or the Deep?

riceangel · May 19, 2009, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onion Guy

Talking about AB? or the Deep?

I was wondering what too, then saw its in the AB section P:

Anyway I like 3 groups of 4, more possibilities

Shayne Hawke · May 19, 2009, 01:14 AM // 01:14

I feel like I'd rather see 4 of 3, but that's more a question of whether you can consistently sync three teams of people into AB to have good teams, and whether those teams would be able to stop an assault from four players against them.

The reason I say this is because while three groups from one would fight three from the other, the fourth group in the 3-man team setup could still go around and cap, or switch off with another team if they start to break down and let that team go cap instead. The 4 of 3 would require much more defensive builds to withstand pressure, but still have at least one character with enough punch to wipe a shrine. It'd be tough compression, but I feel would pay off if it could work.

CronkTheImpaler · May 19, 2009, 03:30 AM // 03:30

3 of 4! as long as people understand that means 3 of 4 that move and cap. you should NOT meet at the middle res shrine for a strat session and cookies! nothing kills the AB wave like people that decide to stand and defend sparta when leading by 200 pts.

Cronk

tmakinen · May 19, 2009, 05:45 AM // 05:45

An optimal strategy cannot be achieved with such rigid deployment options as 3 of 4 or 4 of 3 since one should be prepared to split, regroup, collude and separate flexibly as the situation on the battlefield changes. However, this is way, way above the level of the average AB player. Shrine capturing is most effective for a team of 4 (you get penalized for any number below or over that) and thus you should run 3 teams of 4 players unless you have 3 allied teams on vent and able to use advanced tactics.

Snow Bunny · May 19, 2009, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Considering that you need 1 monk, 1 ranger, 1 ele, and 1 warrior for the optimal team, for survivability, shutdown/movement control, AoE clearance, and raw power, I think 4 works best.

Jeydra · May 19, 2009, 08:04 AM // 08:04

The trivial answer is, neither, because you do not want to cap the whole match. More detailed answer is, the optimal strategy is the flexible one.

Capping is most effective with 4 people. Obviously true. Your presence in the match grows when you have more people on the field. Obviously true. You can increase the number of people in your team by taking NPCs. The logical conclusion is, you do not need 3 groups of 4 people, you need groups of 4 inclusive of NPCs.

I'll illustrate. Suppose you start with Elementalist, Monk, Warrior and Assacaster. You start the match as a 4-man force, of course, but you do not need all four people to clear a shrine. In fact you only need one, the Elementalist. You need all four people to cap a shrine fast but you do not need them to clear it. Therefore if the chance arises Monk, Warrior and Assacaster ought to kill enemy players while the Elementalist is capping.

After the game a bit, if the map is Grenz or Etnaran, chances are the Elementalist, if he is good, will start amassing some NPCs. Permanent NPCs are obviously the best to have, but temporary NPCs are still better than no NPCs. Then his need for the rest of the team gets less and less. If he manages to amass three permanent NPCs he doesn't even need the team anymore. In the meantime the Warrior, Monk and Assacaster, with heavy frontloaded damage, can reasonably hope to fight and pick off other 'teams' (stragglers, not coordinated teams). You need all three for obvious reasons - without the Monk you can't fight for very long and there's a considerable downtime between fights; without either of the damage characters you can't kill a competent Monk fast enough. To top it all off if the Elementalist has a considerable number of NPCs (even 2 is enough) you can collapse and decide mass fights easily.

Therefore your idea of '4 teams of 3' is entirely possible, if one Elementalist has two NPCs and the remaining three players would be two teams of three. But they won't be capping. The Elementalist would be capping, the other three be rolling.

On Ancestral and Kaanai, the NPCs cannot be ressed and the shrines with them are out of the capturing loop, so the above applies less. You still want to split and fight, you just don't want to split so far. You still mix between having three people and having four. If you rigidly stick to moving as a group, you'll waste your potential.

Crom The Pale · May 19, 2009, 10:45 AM // 10:45

Actually I find that on certain maps 2 groups of 6 work best, you will over match the smaller groups of 4 and still move quick enough to keep capping ahead of the other teams. Having Paragons with "Fall Back!" is a must to keep these mini-mobs moving.

Lexar · May 19, 2009, 02:25 PM // 14:25

12 groups of 1.