Curse

Red Sand · Nov 29, 2008, 09:09 PM // 21:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desma The Infinite

Anyways, regarding the AB tactics earning 3 points for every kill only strengthens my strategies. One team can win the match for the whole 12 players if they manage to cap, keep their shrine, and kill 4 players every 7 seconds, the time neccessary for the points of the capped shrine to be counted. (lets call this period a turn) But realisticaly, you can only cap a shrine every 15 seconds at most. So by capping, keeping your cap, and killing 4 players every 14 seconds. A well organized team can gain 14 points every 15 seconds.

I agree with your tactic, but I think your math is way off. It takes more than 7 seconds to kill a team. It takes 8 seconds change to the state of an empty shrine, and 20 seconds if you only have a one pip advantage.

I regularly take my balanced team into AB and hold a shrine or two for the entire match. Specifically one of my favorite strateges on Saltspray is to cap and control three shrines on one side of the map and kill solo cappers and single teams that come on that side: The advantage of the NPCs on the shrines helps.

When The Mob comes, we avoid them, move to the center, roll around them and recap and hold the three shrines again. If my team mates can just take one shrine and not feed the mob, it's a win.

Krill · Nov 29, 2008, 11:30 PM // 23:30

You seem to forget that dead teams are not capping shrines and lose whatever position they had on the map, perhaps rezing far away from where they would like to be.

Red Sand · Nov 30, 2008, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by arienrhode

You seem to forget that dead teams are not capping shrines and lose whatever position they had on the map, perhaps rezing far away from where they would like to be.

A dead player is out of the game for 20 seconds plus whatever time it takes to travel back to catch the rest of their team. If you're nice enough to kill off the entire team, they can reform quickly and get back to the nearest shrine to get back on the board. I call that giving free rides back to the rez.

For this reason, my team tends not to wipe teams unless we already have a score and shrine advantage. We do not give free rides back to the rez: We fragment teams, kill assassins, necros and eles as primary targets. We leave solo monks alive because they are useless without a team. We only kill solo warriors when they just won't go away.

A week or so ago, my team got jumped by two teams on the resurrection orb shrine in Entaran Keys. They got my monk and my midline and then focused on me. If they used my rules of engagement, they would have left the solo warrior alone, because I can't cap or fight without a monk.

Instead they got tunnel vision and had to get that one more kill. I kited them well away from all shrines until my newly resurrected team mates had a chance to meet up with me, and then we killed them.

In all, they were out of the fight for at least a full minute, from the time they killed my teammates but failed to kill me, through the time they chased me around like puppies, through our brief fight and their wait for the rez and whatever time it took them to run to another fight.

I still believe that you can kill every guy on the other team all match long and lose: You have to have more shrines while you do your killing, so capping is important, then holding shrines is important. To do both takes controlling your enemy on the battlefield.

Jaran Cell · Dec 01, 2008, 05:44 AM // 05:44

The best strategy in ab has always been to focus 75% on keeping the shrines you already have and 25% on capping the ones you don't.
A wiped team (12p) + said team not capping a shrine is way superior to you just spending the entire game swapping shrines with each other.
Considering how much time the average ab player spends putting together a coordinated team this strategy tends to not only win you the lion part of the matches but the speed with wich you can blast those poor randomway teams to smithereens is utterly hillarious.

kedde · Dec 01, 2008, 08:30 AM // 08:30

Seriously, stop trying to take ab seriously.

How to win at ab:

Don't be retarded.
Don't play with retards.
Hope your team is less retarded than the opposing.

Gforce · Dec 01, 2008, 08:41 AM // 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

Seriously, stop trying to take ab seriously.

How to win at ab:

Don't be retarded.
Don't play with retards.
Hope your team is less retarded than the opposing.

This. You forgot this one though:
Play hammer warrior and solo assassins until they ragequit.

tmakinen · Dec 01, 2008, 11:09 AM // 11:09

Hmm. The 'only a <derogatory name> takes <game type> seriously' argument is inherently flawed. Regardless of game type, it's all a game, so either any type of game play can be taken seriously or then none. One could argue that you shouldn't take even real life seriously. After all, in the larger scheme of things your utterly insignificant little existence will be over in the blink of an eye and all there is to do is to enjoy it while it lasts. And if somebody enjoys playing AB then who are you to snub your nose at him? Also, 'advice' like 'don't be a tard' are nothing but e-peen posturing.

The reason why I like AB is that it is the primary strategic game type in GW whereas most other PvP types very seldom raise above the (IMO rather dull) tactical level (with the exception of top level GvG which often has a strong strategic element to it). It is also a very accessible type of PvP requiring neither extensive time to get a team going nor long time commitment (since every match is completely separate you can play just one, or ten in a row as your schedule allows). I'm actually writing a rather long strategy guide to AB right now and will post it here once finished.

Gforce · Dec 01, 2008, 02:38 PM // 14:38

Its up to you if you play GvG with strategy or not. You can bring a 321 build and wait for 28 mins or you can play a splitbuild (which is strategic), this is unrelated to top gvg (see #1 on ladder).
The reason I dont take ab seriously is because atleast 90% of the opponents (and the other 8 people in your team) are absolutely terrible, and can be killed 4v8 easily. Dont play with retards is actually a pretty good advice because playing with people you know makes AB a lot easier (since you have atleast FOUR decent players in your team).

PS. I also enjoy playing ab but what kedde said is still true.

kedde · Dec 01, 2008, 03:23 PM // 15:23

If you find AB having more strategy than gvg you're basically ignorant or just don't play it.

Ab is fun with friends because you know you'll be rolling scrubs all over the place.
So playing with people that aren't bad makes it both easier and more enjoyable, that seems like proper advice to me.

As a last note, you don't even have to take ab anywhere near seriously in order to win, for the matter anything except higher level play.

Jaran Cell · Dec 02, 2008, 06:21 AM // 06:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Hmm. The 'only a <derogatory name> takes <game type> seriously' argument is inherently flawed. Regardless of game type, it's all a game, so either any type of game play can be taken seriously or then none. One could argue that you shouldn't take even real life seriously. After all, in the larger scheme of things your utterly insignificant little existence will be over in the blink of an eye and all there is to do is to enjoy it while it lasts. And if somebody enjoys playing AB then who are you to snub your nose at him? Also, 'advice' like 'don't be a tard' are nothing but e-peen posturing.

The reason why I like AB is that it is the primary strategic game type in GW whereas most other PvP types very seldom raise above the (IMO rather dull) tactical level (with the exception of top level GvG which often has a strong strategic element to it). It is also a very accessible type of PvP requiring neither extensive time to get a team going nor long time commitment (since every match is completely separate you can play just one, or ten in a row as your schedule allows). I'm actually writing a rather long strategy guide to AB right now and will post it here once finished.

I've also thought about writing some form of AB guide. If you want any form of input or need specific ingame footage give me a call =)

Anyway there's nothing wrong with taking AB seriously. It's my second favorite form of pvp in GW after GvG. You meet some hillarious builds (usually terrible but still) out there in difference to the other PvP formats wich are rather stale as of late.

AzNChicken · Dec 02, 2008, 08:00 AM // 08:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaran Cell

You meet some hillarious builds (usually terrible but still) out there in difference to the other PvP formats wich are rather stale as of late.

With that being said, I think many people would be discouraged if everyone suddenly became AB experts.

Either way, I doubt even half of the AB community would benefit from a guide since they won't do well with the knowledge anyway.

kedde · Dec 02, 2008, 09:20 AM // 09:20

They wouldn't even get the information, and secondly, if they did they'd probably not understand it anyways.

tmakinen · Dec 02, 2008, 10:12 AM // 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

If you find AB having more strategy than gvg you're basically ignorant or just don't play it.

Unfortunately for you, ad hominem is not a valid argument in your favor. I admitted as well that there are strategic components in GvG. However,

GvG is 1 team versus 1 team, on a map with either 3 (or seldom 4) points of interest
every game is essentially symmetric
virtually all the action happens within the radar range of some of your team members
the mission objective is a tactical one (kill the enemy guild lord)

Compare this to

AB is 3 teams versus 3 teams, on a map with 7 points of interest
most games are strongly asymmetric (top/underdog)
most of the action always happens outside the radar range of your team, and a large part outside the radar range of any allied teams
the mission objective is a strategic one (control the battlefield to accumulate enough holding points for a win)
and most obviously, AB is the only form of PvP where the focal interface of the team leader is the U map.

I'm at loss trying to process your claim since you don't provide any substance whatsoever. Are you perhaps having problems in seeing the difference between tactics and strategy, or strategy and level of competition?

@Jaran: thanks for the offer, it will take another week or so before I have the first complete draft, considering all the issues I'd like to cover.

Red Sand · Dec 02, 2008, 05:10 PM // 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

Are you perhaps having problems in seeing the difference between tactics and strategy, or strategy and level of competition?

Finally! Someone else who knows the difference between strategy and tactics.

Everything discussed here is dependent on the agreement of three random teams to use winning tactics to meet the overall strategy.

Quote:

The OP wants to develop a new strategy, but there really is only one: Control more points on the map than your opponents.

If each team on one side had a leader and three guys willing to follow, and each communicated to the other teams their intentions, and each leader was willing to adjust their tactics to support the overall strategy, that team could win AB the majority of the time.

Since that isn't going to happen, this thread has simply been amusing.

kedde · Dec 04, 2008, 10:10 AM // 10:10

If you fail to see the difference between strategy and tactics you're misunderstanding the word, I'm not.

The level of competition doesn't have anything to do with it, neither was I implying so.

There just is only a single strategy, gain more points than your opponent.

That's done by tactically being less retarded than your opponents and playing with less retarded people.

In a match of gvg, any player and npc is a tactical target for you to try and take down.
It gives you a nice advantage.

That applies to ab as well, but it has far less off an impact on the match.
Ab is also so disorganized that people will seldom choose the rational thing to do which would probably lead to a loss in a gvg.

Also, discussing whether the objectives in each format is strategic, tactical or something third is pretty much irrelevant.

You could go as far out as saying every format is about winning. To win you need to be less bad at the game.

The entire reason for this kind of argument is that trying to develop advanced strategies and tactics for such a random format is just basically a waste of time.
If you're anywhere near a decent player and capable of teaming with decent players as well, you're not going to be in trouble.

tmakinen · Dec 04, 2008, 11:27 AM // 11:27

A lot of irrelevant flailing without still providing a single argument in support of your claim that there is more strategy in GvG than AB (while I provided a very detailed list to the contrary). Is it so hard to admit that you got owned fair and square or should I indeed interpret your latest claim that the whole issue is irrelevant as a roundabout way of admitting that you don't have a leg to stand on?

Gregos Nielsen · Dec 06, 2008, 04:54 PM // 16:54

Quote:

If you fail to see the difference between strategy and tactics you're misunderstanding the word, I'm not.

"Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed." - Wikipedia

"tactics...are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle" - Wikipedia

Now that we have definitions for the two, let us move on to analyzing your interpretations. Although this is not to say there are multiple interpretations for every word depending on the context, these definitions are what is commonly accepted and how, I believe, the OP and many of the individuals in this thread, are using them in this context.

Quote:

There just is only a single strategy, gain more points than your opponent.

This I would interpret as the objective: "An objective is a goal, a planned or intended outcome." - Wikipedia. It is the description that everyone reads when they boot into a match. The end goal of the game would be to "gain more points than your opponent." I would think this to be obvious, and I believe what the OP wants to do is analyze how to evolve our thinking from here.

Quote:

That's done by tactically being less retarded than your opponents and playing with less retarded people.

You attempt to help the OP by bringing in "tactics." This broad assertion is correct, although it may be taken in offense to those who have mental challenges or friends thereof. What is wrong with this assertion is that you fail to define 'retarded', using it as a catch-all solution for tactics without explaining how. Therefore, I am going to assume that you meant to say "being less ignorant of what is happening on the battlefield and how your team plays their builds respectively." However, I think this statement is obvious as well. Anyone who wants to achieve success would want to be aware of what is going on instead of being ignorant.

What a few individuals in this thread have been trying to do though, is to progress beyond this sequence of logic. They are taking what is known from looking at the surface and venturing deeper into the subject. Questions are not asked of the objective of Alliance Battles or whether or not you are supposed to play with alert as opposed to ignorant players; they want to ask questions such as "How can we be aware of what is happening" or "How can we score more than our opponents most efficiently" or "Why is this way of playing more effective"; these are are what I prefer to call the "how" and "why" questions. They are questions that evolve beyond assumptions and seek to analyze what many call "strategy" of the game.

"Strategy" is applied to many aspects of life. If you were a business analyst, you would not tell your clients to "be less ignorant" or "work with less ignorant people". You would tell them how to be less ignorant and work with less ignorant people, how to synergize their efforts and what areas to expand or contract, all in relation to what is going on outside of their business. This is strategy, and regardless of whether or not we are applying it to a game, it does exist. You may not want to take part in analyzing the strategies of Alliance Battle, but there are those who believe it is vital to understanding the game and evolving the level of gameplay that is present in the game at the moment. Let them contribute to this discussion without being hindered by your assertion that you cannot, to put idiomatically, dig any deeper than the surface.

Desma The Infinite · Dec 08, 2008, 09:03 AM // 09:03

Well put Tmakinen. The elements of GvG are much more controlled than that of AB. Quote Kedde. - "Seriously, stop trying to take ab seriously." AB is sometimes taken as a less strategic form of PvP. I have to agree that AB is less strategic, if you want it to be. GvG is no different from AB if you make a BYOB guild. However, many people do take GvG "seriously" compared to the many that do take AB "seriously."This thread is for those that do take AB "seriously." If you intend to attack the necessity of AB strategies, I recommend you make another thread.

If you didn't realize that I was making fun of Kedde's english through the use of repition you do now. To all the other people like Kedde - Get on top 100 GvG ladder. Then go win 25 AB matches in a row at the hardest map. Come back. Tell me which was harder. Only then can you make a comparison and say that GvG is harder than AB. ONLY THEN.

The AB is gonna be harder, because you're bound to get a team of 4 people that just keep killing themselves. Don't even go at the random element with me, as that is what the purpose of AB strategies is - to tip the favor of "randomness" to you.

Bobby2 · Dec 08, 2008, 11:03 AM // 11:03

Nice title would be

'Compensating for your allies'

Red Sand · Dec 08, 2008, 03:04 PM // 15:04

I think that Gregos has the good ideas idea overall, but falls off when he discusses objectives. Except for the overall mission objective, to win, in most military battles, objectives are short term goals, tactical in nature, part of the overall strategy, that have to do with holding or taking ground.

Otherwise, Gregos, kedde and tmakinen make great points. What the OP's goal here was originally, I have yet to determine. This thread was poorly moderated.

My view, from the first posts on this thread has been simple: To win the battle, you have to control more points than your opponent. Period. We've basically gone way away from the whole capping versus killing concept here: You can mob outside the other teams base and kill the same fools every 30 seconds for the entire match and lose because you haven't held a single point the entire match. You just can't kill fast enough to win like that.

If we control more points over the entire match, we win. What you do during the match at each point, at each contact with the enemy, is tactical in nature. Holding points by killing your opponents, capping points by killing NPC and opponents, whatever. Overall you have to have possess more points for the longer period of time to win the battle.

I started doing GvG recently and it is difficult but it's a different kind of difficult from AB. The team build is important, skill level is important, but team coordination is vitally important.

The two teams I play for are beginners and way off the ladder of course, so we typically get owned, but we have beat rank 600-1000 teams because we played better than they did. We made better tactical decisions at the time. They made mistakes, we didn't. It's one of the reasons why I love PvP in GW in the first place. I can't be beat by a guy just because he has played longer and his gear is better than mine. A brand new team CAN out play a team of two year veterans if they learn and apply winning tactics.

GvG is harder than AB because you are trying to coordinate 8 people to neutralize 8 people who generally take the match seriously. The level of skill varies but the players generally will work together and fight as a team. You have the advantage of generally knowing where the bad guys are and instantly communicating what your team has to do to defend against your opponent. Your team has a single leader and follows that leader.

AB is harder than GvG because you are trying to coordinate 12 people in 3 random teams to neutralize 12 people in 3 random teams. At least half of the time, the players/teams on your side do not take the match seriously and have no understanding of the strategic or tactical concerns outside of their compass range. Their ideas of tactics is "Mob" or "Cap". You don't know where all of your people or the bad guys are. No one on your side is in charge.

I don't know why we try to argue which is "harder", both can be equally challenging and frustrating. It's just with status on the line, we tend to take GvG much more seriously.

I like them both, but I tend to take AB a little more seriously and GvG a little less seriously. My personal irreverance for hard core gaming in general.