Conquer Club

Let's hear it. Are you usually the assist man(Troop sharer) who sits back and lets his teammates do the action? Or are you the aggressor(Usually initiates the attacks) I usually find myself falling back and sharing my troops in most team games and try to have a more patient approach, especially when breaking bonuses and such.

CBlake wrote:Let's hear it. Are you usually the assist man(Troop sharer) who sits back and lets his teammates do the action? Or are you the aggressor(Usually initiates the attacks) I usually find myself falling back and sharing my troops in most team games and try to have a more patient approach, especially when breaking bonuses and such.

Depends on drop and position.

yup. would be stupid to assign this type of roles to given players in a team, this should be 100% decided depending on the drop.

betiko wrote:yup. would be stupid to assign this type of roles to given players in a team, this should be 100% decided depending on the drop.

Obviously it depends on drop, but I'm asking what do you find yourself doing more often? More often than not I am sharing troops out of the butt.

I believe Cblake is referring to tendencies, like are you a team player or are you out for glory? While I of course enjoy being the one delivering the final crushing blows I would rather make more secure the win than risk losing position for the sake of making the "winning move". Seems the obvious choice but this is in no way the attitude held by all players.
Another thing to consider is the skill level of the players involved. If Player X has never played on that map before while player Y has that particular map mastered, does the team necessarily decide to make player X as opposed to Y the attacker, even if there is a slight advantage in doing so? I think these types of considerations come into play as well.

i think the question would rather be do you lead or do you follow team strategies... attacking or dropping on teammates is part of the team decision, and if i play with someone only interested in being the hero i won't play team games with him again. like i was playing a quads the other day and ask a teammate to set himself up so I could kill him, double cash and kill 2 opponents probably even 3, he wouldn't listen and didn't want to take one for the team, he was almost dead couldn't cash, attacked so had even one more spoil, blocked me from attacking opponents and left me nothing to kill him as i was playing before the player being his threat..
anybody has problems sacrifying yourself if it's for the good of the team??

Funkyterrance wrote:I believe Cblake is referring to tendencies, like are you a team player or are you out for glory? While I of course enjoy being the one delivering the final crushing blows I would rather make more secure the win than risk losing position for the sake of making the "winning move". Seems the obvious choice but this is in no way the attitude held by all players.
Another thing to consider is the skill level of the players involved. If Player X has never played on that map before while player Y has that particular map mastered, does the team necessarily decide to make player X as opposed to Y the attacker, even if there is a slight advantage in doing so? I think these types of considerations come into play as well.

I play for what is best for the team unless some idiot joins as my p and after he rolls down his troops and does not fort in the proper manner. disreguards team chat, I will foe, not fort him and possibly verbally abuse him.

betiko wrote:anybody has problems sacrifying yourself if it's for the good of the team??

I don't have any problem doing this but I have had problems with other teammates not "giving up the ghost" for the sake of the team. It's really frustrating and I too stop playing team games with these people once I've learned my lesson. Sometimes though, it can be hard to tell the motive at all in which case I have no choice but to give the benefit of the doubt(someone dropping on themselves as opposed to what I feel is a more advantageous deploy).

GeneralRisk wrote:I play for what is best for the team unless some idiot joins as my p and after he rolls down his troops and does not fort in the proper manner. disreguards team chat, I will foe, not fort him and possibly verbally abuse him.

Yeah, part of the risk of deploying solely due to position I suppose. I sometimes have "trust issues" with players I don't know very well and will suggest the team take a slight hit on position in exchange for a slight gain in overall control. It all depends on the weight of each of course.

Funkyterrance wrote:I believe Cblake is referring to tendencies, like are you a team player or are you out for glory? While I of course enjoy being the one delivering the final crushing blows I would rather make more secure the win than risk losing position for the sake of making the "winning move". Seems the obvious choice but this is in no way the attitude held by all players.
Another thing to consider is the skill level of the players involved. If Player X has never played on that map before while player Y has that particular map mastered, does the team necessarily decide to make player X as opposed to Y the attacker, even if there is a slight advantage in doing so? I think these types of considerations come into play as well.

This! I agree a great tell is if the partner is willing to deploy on his partner, in addition to fortifying them. And there is always the risk of being too generous and spreading yourself too thin, so the other team can eliminate you.

Depends on the map, cards, etc,

I always try and reinforce a team mate though.

The way I interpret the question...
I usually lead teamgames. People trust me and I win my fair share of games. Also, I like to lead, it's just who I am. I don't need to be the attacker, because I'm dictating the attacker. That's enough satisfaction for me.

I wonder if most risk players like to lead, being a world domination game and all...

Funkyterrance wrote:I wonder if most risk players like to lead, being a world domination game and all...

it depends. When I know someone is the most competent in my team on the map I want him to lead, if I think I m gonna be the one taking the most responsabilities I lead, but what I prefer is when all teammates give their input for every turn and have good ideas you might not ve thought of.

Boring!!!

Funkyterrance wrote:I believe Cblake is referring to tendencies, like are you a team player or are you out for glory? While I of course enjoy being the one delivering the final crushing blows I would rather make more secure the win than risk losing position for the sake of making the "winning move". Seems the obvious choice but this is in no way the attitude held by all players.
Another thing to consider is the skill level of the players involved. If Player X has never played on that map before while player Y has that particular map mastered, does the team necessarily decide to make player X as opposed to Y the attacker, even if there is a slight advantage in doing so? I think these types of considerations come into play as well.

But let it also be known that FunkyTerrance is a terrible player. He is greedy, must always lead crushing blows. He's just there for the glory, While I win the games

benga wrote:Boring!!!

Thanks for sharing.

swimmerdude99 wrote:
But let it also be known that FunkyTerrance is a terrible player. He is greedy, must always lead crushing blows. He's just there for the glory, While I win the games

Shhhh.