4v4 also works well on New York

i think that next map suggested will be quadruel...

>suggesting a map with 4 territories for an 8 player game.

Gnuff, you stole the words right out of my mouth ;)

Also Gnuff, Quadruel only has 4 territories, how do you suppose a 4vs4 will be played?

I think there should be no 4v4, it takes much too long, and if there are 2 3v3s already there is no point. Also it would escalate until we have 6vs6 and then 12vs12.

it is a mistake :P

A massive team game that takes weeks and requires participation and communication from all members of the clan is a better way to judge than a string of 1v1s.

I wouldn't mind 4 1vs1, 2 2vs2 and 2 3vs3 though

But if we don't get a 2nd 3vs3 I would opt for a 4vs4 just to promote good teamplay more.

In my opinion a good clan is supposed to be more then the sum of it's individual members.

play a 4v4 = best player suggest to puppet....

Piggy thinks team games are better than 1v1s? :O

Also Gnuff, that is because whenever you play 4v4 it is you and 3 of your alternates ;)

Not everyone has your time and motivation to explain every single move to all his or her teammates
We all know you're quite impressive with your alts Gnuffone but having said that, I think the majority of games will not be resolved by a singular person suggesting everyone to puppets.

nope. if a singular person suggest to other like puppet (if this player is strong), this team will greatly benefit.

That puppet thing works only on rare occasions. Only a discussion, especially in multi-day games, can give the whole team an understanding of a good/bad move/strategy. True: Really good players tend to influence those discussions more often than other players. Just giving commands might work for games where time is an issue and if one player just has to determine a master plan or if the players capabilites are not well-balanced.

The puppet-thing works very well, the entire team uses one strategy, that of their best player.
Only thing about it is if you want to play like that, why not just play X alts vs X alts of another player ?

"Their best player", lol. This seems to fit the case the teams capabilities are not well-balanced. In a well-balanced team also the "not best players" can strongly contribute to a strategy. You seem to think, that the "best player" has no use for some other input because it turns out as counter-productive. Thats like saying: one big truck is pulling better than one big and a smaller truck. This is only true if the coordination between those two isnt sufficient if they pull i.e. in different directions. Your opininon just reflects some unwillingness/laziness of players to communicate.

For instance between me and mosquitero.

Mosquitero has keen insight (and probably too much time in analyzing) in the way a game is developing and on what moves an opponent would likely have done in previous turns.

Regardless, in his willingness to believe his game theory plan he sometimes disregards the fact that people don't always think like him. Thus it can happen that although he was convinced a setting would be as he thought, my intuition about the opposite in fact happened to be the case.

Seeing the way our talks differentiate between various players, we can both use this difference to better understand the way a match is developing.

@Mosquitero
Yes, in an unbalanced team.
Balanced teams should seldom/never use this strategy.

I never stated any input from another player would be counter-productive, but, if you want my opinion on the matter;
if the skill-difference is big enough the input from the worse player would mostly just distract the better player.

Your opininon just reflects some unwillingness/laziness of players to communicate.

Awesome how you can extrapolate this from two sentences :D
And yes, i 've played with and against players who were unwilling/too lazy to communicate, haven't you ??
My opinion is mostly based on playing with worse players though ;)

I did NOT write "Your opininon just reflects some unwillingness/laziness of YOU to communicate" ;-).

This puppet thing is ridiculous takes the whole reason of team games why not just play 1v1 since it's the same thing basically.

Ironheart, it is not the same thing. playing as 3 alts instead of just 1 person with x3 picks is very different. You each have a starting income (usually amounts to 15) whereas 1 player has only 5, and all income is split and can only be used by each player depending on their own income, on 1v1 you can use all income your team ahs (i.e. yours)

This makes massive differences when you face stacks, on team games they are harder to stop than on 1v1 where you simply deploy all...

well this thread has been totally hijacked.

I think the only thing I saw worth discussing in the last two pages was whether a person should be allowed to play in both 3v3 teams (without a penalty)

What clans don't have 6 people?