While you can be on one team of each type, at the end of each week you'll only gain points from the team that earned the most points that week.
However, note that given equal rating, 5v5 teams earn more points per week than 3v3, which earn more than 2v2.

To clarify with an example:
- Let's say you're on three teams (one of each format).
- Let's say that at the end of the week, each of the teams you're on ends at a 1500 rating.
- Assume that you were an active player on each team (played in at least 30% of the team's battles)

Results at the end of the week:
- Each active player on the 5v5 team would be eligible to gain 408 arena points
- Each active player on the 3v3 team would be eligible to gain 244 arena points
- Each active player on the 2v2 team would be eligible to gain 163 arena points

So, you'd gain 408 points that week.

Note: in the example we provided above the 1500 refers to the team's rating. The number of points an active player gets from a team is derived from the rating value plotted on a logistic curve.

Also, one of the points we were trying to illustrate above is that active players on that 5v5 team will gain 408 points each. This is the case regardless of whether there are 10 total active players on that team (the max possible), or merely 5 active players (the practical min).

We don't want to "split" points among active players, as that would encourage you to not have alternates on the team, and we don't want to pressure you to minmax the system by always having the min number of players for a team.

Update

Bear in mind that the arena point return for your team's rating ins't linear. So to throw out another example...
- Each active player on a 5v5 team with a 1500 rating would receive 408 arena points at the end of the week.
- Each active player on a 3v3 team with a 2000 rating would receive 632 arena points at the end of the week (as compared to 244 at a 1500 rating).

That being said, we are deliberately trying to encourage the most competitive players to participate in the 5v5 battles, as we feel considerably more comfortable with the potential class balance in this environment. 2v2 has far more potential for certain class combinations to be heavily favored, and as such we're being conservative about how strongly we reward the smaller format sizes.

Your team only needs to fight 10 battles per week to be eligible for points. You can fight more if you so choose. However, due to the way the rating system works (and the way points are derived from rating), teams with high ratings are (in theory) increasingly likely to play only the minimum required number of battles.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5308451610820294896&q=Burning+Crusade+Paladin

jest voulnrable na holy

imo wow sie szybko skonczy ta gra nie ma w sobie potencjalu alby osoba grajaca suuport klasa miala wystaczajaco motywacji zeby nonsop pomagac innnnym
w osiaganiu swoich celow a samemu zostac zajebistym supportejm.. Wow ma po prostu jedna wade zaklada ze polowa osob bedzie leczyla reszte , kiedy tak naprawde nikt nikogo nie chce lexczyc wszyscy chca byc dps klasa i koniec

Podobnie sadze. W FPP'ach jakos nie ma tego problemu. Wybierajac np. inzyniera wiadomo, ze sie np. bedzie stawialo miny i wiekszosc przeciwnikow ciezko zdjac, wiec sie swiadomie wybiera odpowiednia "klase".

A w wow'ie blizzard wspanialomyslnie balansuje niektore klasy (np. Warriora) wokol tego, ze ma na plecach healera, tyle, ze tak naprawde prawie nigdy to sie nie dzieje. Priest chce byc shadow priestem, Warrior dual wielderem. To wszystko wynika tak naprawde ze skaszanienia tych postaci. Jakby bylo tak, ze warrior ma o 5k wiecej hp od np. maga, ma jakies resisty na magie, ale jednoczenie damage output znacznie mniejszy to 99 % warriorow by gralo w BG tankow, analogicznie healerzy by leczyli. Po prostu bylalby wymuszona wspolpraca, a teraz nie ma. Dla mnie zawsze najwiekszym debilizmem w tym mmorpg bylo to, ze klasa oparta na int'cie ma tyle hit pointsow co fizyczny "master of melee" (ktory chce w miare porownywalny damage miec) z szokujaca liczba 20-30 inta. Przeciez to juz od samego poczatku pozbawione jest jakiegokolwiek sensu.

Priest chce byc shadow priestem, Warrior dual wielderem. To wszystko wynika tak naprawde ze skaszanienia tych postaci.

Priest chce byc shadow priestem, Warrior dual wielderem. To wszystko wynika tak naprawde ze skaszanienia tych postaci.

Bo tak na prawde to te speci o ktorych mowisz (np Shadow) sa dobre wlasnie do duelu przed IF, na BG juz sie tak swietnie nie sprawdzaja.