Qi, why Relite winning team games? I think WM have very good 3vs3 teams, especially Gnuff and Szew. Both teams have very good sides, but my money is on [WM]
I could smell that coming for a long long time, but I am very surprised it's Jupiter, not Aranka announcing it. I'll be more than happy to play this challenge.
We are glad to accept your challenge, but why you want to play a 6v6? From my personal experience with the international cup, where we had to play 1v1 2v2 3v3 and even 7v7 (later become 5v5), that last game wasn't that much "skill indicator".
I dunno large team games are for sure a skill thing.
The more players a team, the harder it is to coordinate picks, get a good plan for the game, good tactics. Do you want everyone in combat, do you want to cluster, spread, etc.
I just don't think anyone plays enough of the large team games to begin getting that skilled.
I'm basing this off of the fact that 1v1s I find and have noticed the easiest type of games to learn, then 2v2's then 3v3's etc.
I'm not in any way suggesting I'm good at any of these. :P
So it'd be cool to see if [WM] and ReLite who both have large(enough) talented player bases to do a 6v6 with all very talented players, if they could begin to delve into and see if there is any strategic possibility to a 6V6.
Also you can exchange the Y with "Attention you put in teamwork".
When i play more than 4 in a team, i really don't give a fuck about the others. I watch only my part of map. I would go crazy to chech...don't know 6-7-8 orders :/
Oh god Sze that graph... 2 out of the 3 players in a 3v3 just need enough skill to shut up and do what theyre told (by you). 1v1 specialists are the masterrace of WL.
i agree with sze. any graph (of skill vs # of players/team) should look like a woman's breasts from the side angle. but i disagree with the perfectly flat stomach. women come in different shapes and sizes. but based on sze's graph, it doesn't make sense why he can easily reach #1 on the 1v1 ladder and gnuff has too. but as a team they made odd picks/moves so they were only the 5th or 6th best active ladder team.
hedja, it depends on who plays the team games for wm. randomly select players from wm, and relite wins. pick wm's best team players only, wm wins.
dead, wl is all about 1v1 me. that's why i call it 1v1 me, bc when many of these 'me' players play a team game requiring 'team' coordination, they still think more about 'me' than 'team'.
Qi there is no such thing as "team coordination". I think you put 'team' in apostrophes because even you dont believe it. A 3 person team is one person with one plan directing 2 other peoples armies. It is no less about oneself than a 1v1. Sze demonstrates that every single game. =P
just wanted to add 2 cents: the 5v5, 6vs6 and 7v7 have some interest because it grows further out of the one leader controlling everything and more down to folks helping each other out, covering the map well, supporting each other, knowing when they are more useful sacrificing themselfs. so i can't really agree with that chart, even if it does look like a boob as Gui pointed out. But yeah, i agree most of those games are won more pickings lottery then actual skill, but i still woulnd't paint such a dark scenario as some of you do.
LOL
i take your post as a joke...
in 7v7 there are less spot for eash player
and the best place are < number of player
so if there are for example 3 best bonus and 14 player, who take 2 of it might have a greeat ahead.
in 3v3 eu ISN'T a lottery.
I think it is more the total number of picks that is the problem. On the 3v3 Euro template that is in vogue, there are 24 total picks. Maybe with the first picks there can be some skill, but there is absolutely no science to deciding which pick should be your 20th and which your 21st. Sometimes you end up with a combination of 4 that work terribly together.
So, a 7v7 with one pick each should be less of a "lottery" than Gnuff's 3v3 Euro games.
more armies (income) pumped into a map = less subtlety needed to play efficiently/smoothly and with good tactics and strategies
this is why I prefer no reinforcement cards and bonus ratios closer to .6 than to 1.0
give an idiot a big income and he'll do some things right. give an idiot a low income and he'll make more mistakes because every army lost or gained matters. this is why idiots love big maps so much and better players play more games on maps of 100 to 300 territories. only eastern asia provides something both general types of players like.
6v6 or 7v7: mismatches/tagteaming/gangbanging are too common. how can you make long-term strategic plans if a second third or fourth enemy pops out of nowhere? with 3v3s this element is limited and is a stabler variable in long-term planning. this added stability makes abbig difference.
