Curse

sir lockt · Jan 11, 2007, 08:35 AM // 08:35

Since sometime I am struggling with a solution for a common problem: how to lead a guild battle properly?

There are several options possible:
- Non organisation: every player act as an individual and decides whether or not to do something. I have talked to some korean players, which preferred this situation: own initiative, own skill
- Tight command: 1 player is responsible for every decisision, you follow them like in a militairy command structure, no questioning... discuss errors afterwards.

Problem of the first is that there might be conflicting ideas, that work against the general movement of the team. Problem with the second is that you need a decisive figure, with perfect battle awareness, good information (especially in a split) and natural superiority.

So my first question is: What kind of organisation does your guild use? is there a battleleader? or you decide individualy?

My follow-up question is then: if you have a single (or duo or whatever structure you use for leading) battleleader, what character is most suited for it? Deep melee chars that can overview the enemy movement properly, monks that should have clear overview...or maybe a mid-line caster? all have advantages/disadvantages, I am curious about your ideas, tips and strategies on this matter!

Fire away!

lordelg · Jan 11, 2007, 09:01 AM // 09:01

In my guild, one of our frountline melee charecters acts as target caller, where as for tactics its usually a midline player who dictates whats going to happen. Its worked for us so long as everyone understands that they follow order's weather its silly or not, fight as a team. If it doesn't work because A) not everyone joined in and time was wasted, then we flam each other in vent for a while. if its cos it was a silly tactic we talk about it and how to improve next time.

Though being able to play with no Vent or comms like koreans means u need to know your team members inside out.

Wasteland Squidget · Jan 11, 2007, 09:16 AM // 09:16

For a while, I ruled NUKE GvGs with an iron fist, making the tactics calls and coordinating the offense so that everyone worked together. I was reasonably good at it and it worked okay, but after a while I regretted doing things that way. It allowed some otherwise good players to never learn individual decision making or movement, which proved to be a problem later on.

Basically, as you play better and better opponents, it's less and less feasable for one person to be in charge of everything. You can try splitting responsibilities and having multiple tactic callers, but in my experience it almost always works better to give individual players authority to make decisions. If you're a warrior and you're getting nothing done at the flagstand due to wards + blinds + Aegis, go chase their flagger or harrass someone in the base until you're getting stuff done. If you're a monk and not suffering any pressure at the stand against a split build, leave the other monk and head back into the base to help push them out. Inform the team of your movements, but don't wait for someone to tell you what to do.

I think having a single strat caller can win you more games initially and allows you to hide your weaker players, but individual decision making will let you learn quicker and ensure that everyone is doing what needs to be done.

Vermilion Okeanos · Jan 11, 2007, 09:23 AM // 09:23

Personally, in training, I like no.2; in a take turn enviorment it will help everyone to improve by quite a dramatic level if done right. This also teach the players responsibilities.

While in real combat situation, I prefer no.1, and it should be given that everyone had gone through the training no.2 gave. However, I feel it is still needed to switch between the 2 in some special scenarios. Like meeting a threatening gimmick of some sort that require some heavily experienced player to call the shot until everyone get use to it within the first few minutes of encounters.

So, basically... keep plan A but remember to have plan B ready to switch in.

Seamus Finn · Jan 11, 2007, 09:41 AM // 09:41

I think the level of iron fist can be largely dependant on the build you are running. Obviously a caster spike is controlled solely by the target caller. As the builds get more versatile and splitable, you will need to have more independant thinking. Communication is key in either event(a warrior asking a mesmer for a gale on a target or a blinbot asking for a shatter/drain on a sight beyond sight dervish for instance). I've never been in a caster spike guild, but I would imagine even then the target called could use some vital information that he/she might miss. In my guild, we have a guy who has the authority to call a team tactic that people will follow(although certain players in key positions(defending ganks, monks, flaggers, etc. can object or bring some much needed information), but as the guild has played more, the need for general strat calls from a single player has diminished.

I think the other question, regarding who is best to call tactics, is a bit more interesting. I don't really play a frontliner in gvg and am not as used to "the looks" it gives, but when I do play the role I find the field view quite diminished. At the same time, when I monk, which is quite often, something like catching an incoming flagger is usually a moot point as by the time he/she enters your view of the field he/she is between your midliners and frontliners and in healing range, or even knowing when an opposing team is "hurting" enough that a hard push could cause a team wipe is not something a monk would be privy to(or at least not me). Theoretically, I would say a midliner has the best of both worlds(wasn't Evils strat caller -if they had one - a mesmer? I thought I remembered hearing something like that). I do know that I often tailor my warrior strat callers tactics with defensive input when I monk...

Thomas.knbk · Jan 11, 2007, 10:20 AM // 10:20

I thought EviL's stratcaller was God?
I've never had the privilage to call strats myself. In past guilds, there has always been one caller. One was playing a caster spike mostly so all I can say on that is duh. One was playing more builds, all forms of balanced. We had a warrior calling targets, and a midliner calling strats like pulling back, splitting etc.
My current guild is a totally different story because we play a split build. I'm a monk mostly, so I don't pay that much attention to offensive startegies. in the spit one guy calls starts and targets. At the stand it's one of our frontliners. The bigger strategy calls, like sending one monk/derv with the split team, are made by everyone because the split team doesn't always have a clear view on what's happening at the stand and vice versa.
For 'smaller' offensive strategies like calling targets, I think a caller in the frontline would be best because well...the frontline is your offense. For the larger ones such as when to pull back or who to send where it doesn't matter. It could be a midliner, or even a monk.

romO · Jan 11, 2007, 05:29 PM // 17:29

I suppose the way that QQ does it is that everyone controls themselves and has the power to order anyone else to do something at the same time, if that makes sense.

We don't have a "strat caller", as we know the objectives of our build coming out. Then, we all have to individually adapt to best help our team accomplish those objectives. One player can't really hold a complete grasp of the game and it usually helps to let players do what they want because they will generally know what they need to do to help the team best. Of course, that's making two assumptions: that you trust that what the other players decide to do will benefit the team and that every time a player does anything regarding adjustment in positioning, offensive strategy, or defensive strategy, he/she communicates it in vent. Does that lead to "vent clutter"? Yeah, definetely, as we usually have several people talking in vent at the same time. However, instead of not really knowing what's going on aside from your own personal experiences and the dictation of a single person, you know exactly what's happening to every member of your team and every member of the opposition. You get a more complete grasp on the status of the game, and once you have that, making your own personal strategic moves and adjustments becomes much easier because you are aware how to compliment the actions of your teammates.

As far as giving any player the ability to dictate the actions of any teammate, it's pretty self-explanatory. Sometimes, you see an opportunity for another player to make good of or a need for a certain player to be in a specific position. Once again, it comes down to trust and communication. You need to trust that if another player is telling you to do something, then it will be successful either offensively or defensively. Other players will need to trust you as well when you're making the calls. The most important aspect of that is relaying why you're making a call. Don't make it too long, just quickly spit out what's going on and what you want to do. If a teammate responds with an arguement against that plan, then evaluate their current situation against the one that you want to put them in and either abort your plan or ask them to execute despite their objections. This doesn't apply to simply player to player communication, but also player to team strat calling. If a certain player makes a call for the entire team, then they have the authority to do so and the team can follow.

Usually, not all players can do all of these things equally, and often times, a few players will end of making a majority of the strat decisions. This is okay because some players are just more timid and others authoritative. As long as individuals are not afraid to counter a player making a strat call and understand exactly what it is that they're doing, it won't turn out too badly. A few select players often come up with the most team-wide strat calls throughout the course of a game, and often there is a dominant caller that develops within systems. For example, one monk will end up setting up the defensive strategy a majority of the time or one ganker will end up making movement calls. Once again, although a few players might be louder than others, it doesn't mean that what they say is more important or that the other players shouldn't be thinking for themselves.

It's vital that at some point in every game, every single player is contributing to team movement or meeting the team goal at the time, whether it's individual adjustment or a team strat call.

Manfred · Jan 11, 2007, 07:54 PM // 19:54

Mhmm, if all 8-16 people are smart, good, and experienced at working together (and with the build), you should rarely need a centralized decision. There should still be one person who has final say over any disputes or important decisions, but they shouldn't really be saying much.

In inexperienced guilds, a lot of what this "battleleader" does is baby-sit the rest of the players, and eventually that's no longer necessary. However, as romo says, everyone can improve, and there are often things that look different from another point of view.

As for who I think should be this "arbiter," I'd say warrior or non-busy caster. When you need an overriding decision and not just a "fall back on X" or "5 is going to push for the siege" it's usually in response to what the other team is doing, and good warriors are the freest characters who almost always know what the other team is doing.

Seamus Finn · Jan 11, 2007, 10:10 PM // 22:10

One thing that is worth pointing out is that I think singular start callers can be a teams undoing. When monking, If I can clearly identify that one warrior is calling the shots, I can usually jsut pay attention to his skill usage and figure the majority of the teams offensive plan and keep the proper red bars high. If teammates have more indenpendance, the defensive planning is more difficult because the opposing offense isn't as "overly streamlined." I do think that for newer guild or guilds with players new to pvp that a strong strat caller is needed though.

sir lockt · Jan 12, 2007, 08:34 AM // 08:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by romO

...

and what if this indepence is interfering with each-other?

example: the monks run out of energy, and call a tactical retreat, at the same moment a warrior sees a target of oppertunity (lets say a morale boost oppertunity if you can stop that runner for 10 secs) and calls the advance.

independence will result in half the team following the retreat, half the team to push up... how do you handle such interfering situations?

If one of the decisions is totally wrong, then 7 ppl will follow the good one, but still that single person dies or a monk pulls out...

(forgive me the shallow example)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vermilion Okeanos

So, basically... keep plan A but remember to have plan B ready to switch in.

"

plans often turn ill, because the opposing party never does what you want... (or at least you have to assume it doesnt...) how to you plan the l33t plan C on the roll?

lordelg · Jan 12, 2007, 08:43 AM // 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir lockt

and what if this indepence is interfering with each-other?

example: the monks run out of energy, and call a tactical retreat, at the same moment a warrior sees a target of oppertunity (lets say a morale boost oppertunity if you can stop that runner for 10 secs) and calls the advance.

Then isn't that the situation the monk should swap to +ve energy sets for a short amount of time to gain moral and then call a retreat??

Well, once the warrior has explained what he is doing of course.

Thom Bangalter · Jan 12, 2007, 08:49 AM // 08:49

QQ knows what they're doing, obviously; but their style of play isn't going to suit every guild do to discrepencies in player skill between QQ and 99% of the guild ladder. Tommy covers a lot of "what if" scenarios though when he speaks of the authoritative nature of some players compared to others.

Here's how Pink plays: one person makes offensive tactical decisions (the caller). The rest of the team gives him input. Monks call out how much the team is being pressured, I call out how the base looks from my flagger position, and so on. We adjust gameplay according to the information that comes in from various sources, and our caller makes the final tactical decision, because it works out a lot better that way and there's a lot less rage on vent if you don't piss off the caller.

Most importantly though, listen to your monks.

Seamus Finn · Jan 12, 2007, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordelg

Then isn't that the situation the monk should swap to +ve energy sets for a short amount of time to gain moral and then call a retreat??

Well, once the warrior has explained what he is doing of course.

Monks never swap to a high set for any amount of time other than a cast, MAYBE two.

Wasteland Squidget · Jan 12, 2007, 09:57 AM // 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seamus Finn

Monks never swap to a high set for any amount of time other than a cast, MAYBE two.

If your team breaks for energy reasons when you still had energy in your high set, that's bad. Monks should inform their team when they're forced to go into high sets to keep people alive, but even draining out your entire high set is preferable to a team wipe. Those extra few minutes of holding up can make or break some games.

That said, time between casts after you've started to exhaust your high set should definitely be spent in lower sets.

Patrograd · Jan 12, 2007, 12:29 PM // 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir lockt

example: the monks run out of energy, and call a tactical retreat, at the same moment a warrior sees a target of oppertunity (lets say a morale boost oppertunity if you can stop that runner for 10 secs) and calls the advance.

A good warrior will be able to assess the situation and decide whether or not he can push on alone for something as important as a morale boost. I think though that in more general terms a warrior ignoring his monks is likely to get very dead very quickly

I guess its all down to experience and playing together. Maybe the warrior knows his monks call short energy before they are really all that short, and so he knows he can get away with a little mini push probably at the price of no more than a little bit of monk rage.

Yue · Jan 12, 2007, 04:17 PM // 16:17

With the "iron fist" concept, you have a lower prevalence of "the weakest link". When you're using the first option with multiple strat callers and people thinking for yourselves, it becomes much more obvious who's not going to be good at it. Your team is only as good as its worst player, and running nonspecific strat calling brings that into the light. When using a primary tactics/strat caller, like squidget says, it gives you less of an opportunity to see who else on your team is good at it and also prevents them from learning. Imo you'd want to switch off that kind of structure as soon as your guild gets off its feet, or if it's a more experienced guild, not use that at all. This isn't to say you shouldn't have someone who presides over situations where there are contradicting commands, but you should definitely not have one person make all the decisions if you want your guild and your players to improve. On another note, having people think for themselves also allows your team to be more unpredictable to the opposing team. In good teams where people are provided to think for themselves, path and movement are much different and split reactions are much faster than if there was one dedicated caller. Teams that run the loose tactics structure are the ones that can effectively run resettable splits (6/1/1, 5/2/1, etc) since their players are much more capable of playing individually.
This is all, of course, not in respect to spike guilds since they have to use a primary caller.

Seamus Finn · Jan 12, 2007, 08:52 PM // 20:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wasteland Squidget

If your team breaks for energy reasons when you still had energy in your high set, that's bad. Monks should inform their team when they're forced to go into high sets to keep people alive, but even draining out your entire high set is preferable to a team wipe. Those extra few minutes of holding up can make or break some games.

That said, time between casts after you've started to exhaust your high set should definitely be spent in lower sets.

I was just quickly trying to dissuade the idea of sitting in higher sets for any period of time longer than a cast or perhaps two if it was necessary. Yes you would continually swap up if it meant saving a vital teammate(flagger, etc) or preventing a wipe, and then swap back down. I figured if i went on about it too long it would be "off topic."

romO · Jan 14, 2007, 12:33 AM // 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by sir lockt

and what if this indepence is interfering with each-other?

example: the monks run out of energy, and call a tactical retreat, at the same moment a warrior sees a target of oppertunity (lets say a morale boost oppertunity if you can stop that runner for 10 secs) and calls the advance.

independence will result in half the team following the retreat, half the team to push up... how do you handle such interfering situations?

If one of the decisions is totally wrong, then 7 ppl will follow the good one, but still that single person dies or a monk pulls out...

(forgive me the shallow example)

Communication.

If a monk needs for the team to pull out and a warrior wants to push for a team collapse or morale boost, then there needs to be a comprimise due to the evaluation of the options. If the teams are mostly even in morale, but your team has burnt all of their res sigs, then the monk needs to compromise and realize that the offensive possibilities at the time are more beneficial to the team than the impending full wipe, regardless of the deaths that the team might take during the push. If the need to wipe a monk or two or gain morale is not that great at the time, then the warrior needs to submit to the call of the monk. Normally one of the calls will be far more dire than the other and both of the players making the calls need to let each other know which is more important for the team. As long as both of the players are letting each other know about the offensive/defensive state of the game at all given times and they are both smart and rational players, their evaluations of the team's needs at the time will come out with the same conclusion and singular plan will be decided upon. Of course, I have guested for guilds where there were large disputes during games and people would not agree on what to do, but if everyone on the team acknowledges the gameplan and how they are supposed to set out to accomplish it, that really shouldn't happen too often.

Rule of thumb of who gets the absolute final call of what to do is listen to the monks, whether the call is offensive or defensive. If a monk says "pull out" and an offensive character gives an offensive opportunity of the team at the time, and the monk responds by saying that they need to pull out right now, it's most likely the best course of action, assuming you are confident that the monk is intelligent and looking out for the best interests of the team and not themselves. As far as offensively calling on a monk, let's just say that in most close games for QQ during offensive pushes, the warriors call to return to the flagstand to regroup or wait for NPCs, and I'm the one who ends up screaming "FINISH IT!" while I cast my last RoF out of my 72 energy set.

Elrodien · Jan 15, 2007, 04:05 PM // 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thom Bangalter

Most importantly though, listen to your monks.

This is so true it needs to be written on-screen before every gvg starts.

MaaKotka · Jan 18, 2007, 12:11 AM // 00:11

If the guild is new and players are pretty unexperienced in GvG, I think that guild should choose ironfist choise. And there strategy caller should play monk, because he is probably the person who knows best, if their team can make pushes and if they can't. But the more you play then other players should start doing strategy calls or suggestions as they see they are needed.

As for our guild our communication still really sucks. I'm mostly the one who makes those bigger strategy calls (big pushes and reatreats, and when we split against battles where we can't overwhelm them at flagstand) and I play mostly monk or midline caster. I find myself way too often asking what is happening at our base or at enemies base when split is there etc. But I'm not ironfist ruler anyway. Our frontline players does smaller pushcalls all the time and everyone are free to call any stategies when they feel those should be done and we have also almost in every match couple of players speaking at same time at vent.

And as is said: Always listen to your monks! They are the ones who keep you alive after all.