drakol
11/13/2005, 03:46 AM
After a thoroughly frustrating day in AB PuGs, I began thinking how nice it would be to run a DD AB group and whoop the pants off the alliance. However, I then began thinking of "The Tony" type groups and how we continually seem to have problems handling them. I just thought I'd post some thoughts about AB in general to help spark a little discussion. By no means am I claiming anything below will "work" or "is right"...at times some of it may seem critical. I just want to assure everyone up front that there's no intention to offend anyone or make someone feel they're not pulling their weight in AB...it's just meant to get people talking about what we can do to improve as a group.
There's no doubt in my mind that we communicate just fine. We're using vent and everyone does a pretty good job stating how many incoming alliance an area may have and whether assistance is needed. Short of everyone being in the same room together, I think we talk to each other about what's happening just fine.
What I think we could improve upon is responsiveness. Now, I'm not saying that we DON'T respond. What I'm saying is that we respond POORLY. If an area has incoming alliance and it's stated as such, people respond but it's never predictable. We can have anywhere between 1 person to everyone racing to help out. This isn't very efficient since it can cluster us in one place and thin us out in another. Also, it's never clear what classes are going to help out. If 3 people head to help out but they're all cloth wearers, there's a pretty decent possibility that they might not last too long. As a result, we're always on our heels REACTING to situations - just where the alliance wants us.
One thing we do well in the beginning is we have a plan of which groups go where in order to capture a node. However, our plan always ends there. After the initial rush to the flags, our groups fall apart and people start moving from place to place haphazardly. Now, I agree that we need to be flexible and adjust to the situation at hand, we just need to do it SMARTER.
One possible idea is that we think "out of the box" a bit. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but think about what Blizzard supplies us with. They give us a raid group with 8 nice groups of 5 people each. Why 5 people? Who knows? Should we always think in terms of 5 people then? Maybe not....
If we have 15 people, why not come up with 5 groups of 3? We'll have smaller, more mobile groups that have a better chance of getting where they need to quicker to help out. What we'd need to be conscious of is maintaining our groups throughout the match and setting them up in a way where the 3 people in each group compliment each other well.
What would this gain us? Well, if an area needs help, an ENTIRE group goes to help. This means the person requesting the help is getting 3 people as backup and they KNOW it. No surprises at all in what type of reinforcements to expect. Also, you're getting 3 people that compliment each other well. A group set up this way can be as effective as up to 5 people that we currently send to help out.
Also, 3 people is a pretty healthly number to guard a node and fend off attackers until help comes. It also makes sure that we don't take a node and leave it open. If you stick with your group and your group is guarding a node, we should always have 3 and support will never be too far away.
So how would the beginning of the match go? One group takes the farm and stays there to guard. Another goes to the lumber mill and yet another goes to the blacksmith. A fourth to the mines?....maybe. There could be benefit in that by disrupting the alliance there so they can't help out elsewhere. This could give us a chance to cap the lumber mill and blacksmith without them sending in reinforcements.
That leaves a fifth group of 3 strictly for support. Where they go depends on who needs the help. They could potentially hang back until it's known what area is getting zerged. They'd have the ability to help out either the lumber mill or the blacksmith, depending on who needs the help.
From there, I'm not sure how things would go, but our 3 man groups could be pretty effective in their mobility and complimentary nature.
Will this all work? I'm not sure. This turned out to be a bit longer than I originally intended, so I'm going to stop now and let the discussion begin. If anything, I hope that this at least gets us talking about possible improvements and if one good idea comes out of the discussion, it was worth it.
-Drakol
There's no doubt in my mind that we communicate just fine. We're using vent and everyone does a pretty good job stating how many incoming alliance an area may have and whether assistance is needed. Short of everyone being in the same room together, I think we talk to each other about what's happening just fine.
What I think we could improve upon is responsiveness. Now, I'm not saying that we DON'T respond. What I'm saying is that we respond POORLY. If an area has incoming alliance and it's stated as such, people respond but it's never predictable. We can have anywhere between 1 person to everyone racing to help out. This isn't very efficient since it can cluster us in one place and thin us out in another. Also, it's never clear what classes are going to help out. If 3 people head to help out but they're all cloth wearers, there's a pretty decent possibility that they might not last too long. As a result, we're always on our heels REACTING to situations - just where the alliance wants us.
One thing we do well in the beginning is we have a plan of which groups go where in order to capture a node. However, our plan always ends there. After the initial rush to the flags, our groups fall apart and people start moving from place to place haphazardly. Now, I agree that we need to be flexible and adjust to the situation at hand, we just need to do it SMARTER.
One possible idea is that we think "out of the box" a bit. I know that sounds a bit cliche, but think about what Blizzard supplies us with. They give us a raid group with 8 nice groups of 5 people each. Why 5 people? Who knows? Should we always think in terms of 5 people then? Maybe not....
If we have 15 people, why not come up with 5 groups of 3? We'll have smaller, more mobile groups that have a better chance of getting where they need to quicker to help out. What we'd need to be conscious of is maintaining our groups throughout the match and setting them up in a way where the 3 people in each group compliment each other well.
What would this gain us? Well, if an area needs help, an ENTIRE group goes to help. This means the person requesting the help is getting 3 people as backup and they KNOW it. No surprises at all in what type of reinforcements to expect. Also, you're getting 3 people that compliment each other well. A group set up this way can be as effective as up to 5 people that we currently send to help out.
Also, 3 people is a pretty healthly number to guard a node and fend off attackers until help comes. It also makes sure that we don't take a node and leave it open. If you stick with your group and your group is guarding a node, we should always have 3 and support will never be too far away.
So how would the beginning of the match go? One group takes the farm and stays there to guard. Another goes to the lumber mill and yet another goes to the blacksmith. A fourth to the mines?....maybe. There could be benefit in that by disrupting the alliance there so they can't help out elsewhere. This could give us a chance to cap the lumber mill and blacksmith without them sending in reinforcements.
That leaves a fifth group of 3 strictly for support. Where they go depends on who needs the help. They could potentially hang back until it's known what area is getting zerged. They'd have the ability to help out either the lumber mill or the blacksmith, depending on who needs the help.
From there, I'm not sure how things would go, but our 3 man groups could be pretty effective in their mobility and complimentary nature.
Will this all work? I'm not sure. This turned out to be a bit longer than I originally intended, so I'm going to stop now and let the discussion begin. If anything, I hope that this at least gets us talking about possible improvements and if one good idea comes out of the discussion, it was worth it.
-Drakol