Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 278

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: When you win, it's because you were better - would be nice

  1. #201
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    @Franknarf,

    Well fair enough - I'm no Grudgewielder! lol

    I said I was surprised people were complaining about the SS in this thread because... And then went on to explain how I see her ability as not random. It seems we now somewhat agree on that point and overall our opinion on the issue of randomness in the game at all is not so different. So I guess we have come to a sort of accord?

  2. #202
    Accord reached. You may now return to your regularly-scheduled on-topic conversation!

  3. #203
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    And I have no problem with strong abilities, what I have a problem with is elements that are out of my control deciding my fate.
    As it pertains to RoA, and imo RNG as well, you are certainly in control of your fate. You can see the SS on the board. The UI even tells you a trap is down when its fired. You can think ahead to avoid a game-changing RoA play by your opponent. This entire argument (that RoA is random and thusly reducing the competitive potential of the game) seems to neglect the fact that we aren't just running numbers and concepts against each other. You have the ability to think ahead and, most importantly, position your units in a way that accounts for these contigencies. This isn't "bypassing the randomness" it's learning, understanding, and adapting to the inherent mechanics of the game. I think these sort of risk/reward/contingency considerations are, frankly, the best part. The RoA mindgame is one of my favorite emergent scenarios. It really sounds like you're weighing the validity of TBS:F as a competitive endeavor against chess or go, and in the world of computer strategy games it's simply not effective. If you can provide me an example of a competitive strategy title that does not have a similar risk/reward mechanism re: traps/RNG/etc, please let me know. I'd like to try it. That said, I can think of 10 strategy titles off the top of my head that implement RNG in a less elegant way and still remain competitive (Civilization stacks seems like a good example here to me). I'm not trying to discount your argument but, as I've said and as raven reiterated, this really seems to boil down to personal preference rather than an inherent design flaw that invalidates competiveness.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-07-2013 at 02:54 PM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Haseo, why would you step on it if you knew exactly where it was. If I were trying to reach my target I would step on the square before the trap.
    because you can't know the exact location only the general idea. Again... It's invisible remember, guessing game.

    On the second point, why bother keeping the ability a trap, if it's not a trap, but a blocker. This is an intuition thing. We had so many details in the game change just cos of "does it make intuitive sense." I am saying if you're proposing to make the RoA visible, we should change how things display. It should just act like a post. It should no longer permit people to path over the tile at all. Again for the reasons I have laid out.
    Because as a trap you still have the option to go over it, if it simply makes the square impassable it becomes infinitely more powerful. With the trap you can step on it and be a square closer, impassable means 2 SS can make 2 of the maps impossible to move around on for varls. Also you know the player who fires the ROA can move over it as a trap, right? Plus abilities like the SRM's knockback can eat traps without wasting a turn, only taking one damage.

    (*You're feelings regarding the RoA mechanic are also subjective: "not fun to play with/against", they're how you feel, not necessarily how the rest of the playerbase does. Should we want to verify this, a survey/poll would be ideal - you may of course be right or not).
    I never suggested everyone else feels this way, I've been very careful to repeatedly say this is my opinion not everyone's opinion. I don't wish to speak for anyone but myself.


    Fourth, how is skill still not involved? In a basketball game, who has the ball in those last 5 seconds to make that clutch shot? It's either your best player or your best shooter. Same vein, if I'm a skilled player and I can't cover all my approach paths, I will deduce and use my intuition to try to predict where to place my RoA to catch my opponent. Alternatively, if I'm on the approach, I will try to predict how my opponent is placing the RoA. Yes, it does boil down to a mindgame. And yes, at the highest level of play, this is the same as having equal chances on all approaches. Well I don't see this much different from widely popular and competitive sports outside of TBSF (the reason I keep illustrating these is to point out there may be NO NEED to change RoA - there's also little need to keep on with the counterpoints if you're fine with it as is, as you've been saying). In other sports, it's as much as a toss-up whether that star player will pull-off that clutch play. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. It's still those players that have the best chance to do it.
    I see it plenty different from wildly popular popular and competitive sports - there's no invisible players in basketball, if someone's going to try and take a shot you can block him from taking that shot and you can block him from passing to another player who might take that shot.

    You know where the ball is in a sports play, you don't know where they're going to go beforehand yes, but you can see them as they do it. The RoA is like a player disappearing from vision for multiple seconds then appearing somewhere else. Sure you can guess where he might go... but that would be hilariously unfair all the same.

    And I would still argue, there are factors affecting games, outside the game itself which affect the game's outcome. There's never really pure determinism. Who can predict if an injury will occur in any sport? Or weather conditions? Or even player condition?
    And in TBSF your starting lineup gives you an advantage or disadvantage depending on the opponents team as well, no denying certain units are better than others in certain situations and there's no way to predict what your opponent will field. That's an integral part of the game, it's not a minor thing. It's in the same vein while yes the starting lineups have advantages/disadvantages against certain compositions, the alternative isn't realistic. Simply changing RoA by comparison is a small change and within the realm of possibility.

    I will also caution, TBSF isn't chess. We compare it a lot because of many similarities. But it's betterthat the 2 games are different. Cos hey, if you wanted to play chess, you'd go off to play chess, right?
    I do.



    If 2 players have exactly the same skill, make no mistakes, and end up playing evenly...the game will eventually boil down to who has more luck. Even if all that "luck" was who started first.
    Luckily two people almost never have exactly the same skill. My whole point is that several elements are luck based, RoA however is the worst offender and easiest change. Though I would advocate for willpower strength to add accuracy if below armor instead of straight damage as well, it's rarely if ever as game changing as an RoA.

    And seriously man, you would have hated MTG, instants and traps abound in that game, you can have trash starting hands and a sequence of poor draws, and yet it's one of the biggest and most fun games out there .
    I played MTG for years mostly because my friends played, I never really enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the excuse to hang out. I had a deck that could win on turn 1 or 2 20%~ of the time. Had another deck ages ago that was circle of protection, after about a dozen turns I was generally invincible against my opponent, especially if I tailored the deck to their colors in a 1v1. Most people don't have enough disenchants to counter the CoPs and my own counterspells.

    Magic was and is a broken game. I can see why people enjoy it, I however do not. There are too many variables for it not to, I had more fun building my decks than playing the game really.

  5. #205
    Sweetjer you can't avoid losing a turn due to trap on greathall or whichever one has those 4 corner posts, on the other maps it's less obnoxious, but there it's easy to either force a varl to rest or get stunned. Either way it costs a turn or a turn and one damage of a varl for a turn of an SS which is inherently less valuable. Plus a 1 str SS is just as effective at preventing the turn of said varl as a full str one.

  6. #206
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    I try not to flaunt my experience in these types of conversations, but I'm going to do so because you seem to be responding as though I don't understand how the game works or the mechanics I'm addressing in my response...so here are my credentials: I held the top spot in beta during a number of builds of the game (not as consitently as Tirean or Raven, but I was there nonetheless). I have 700 games under my belt and 500 hours of client time. I know the maps and the mechanics. I am speaking with that knowledge in mind. I still disagree with your assessment. Proper positioning and play can mitigate the RoA's "game-changing" potential. That's the crux of the argument, and I maintain it.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by sweetjer View Post
    I try not to flaunt my experience in these types of conversations, but I'm going to do so because you seem to be responding as though I don't understand how the game works or the mechanics I'm addressing in my response...so here are my credentials: I held the top spot in beta during a number of builds of the game (not as consitently as Tirean or Raven, but I was there nonetheless). I have 700 games under my belt and 500 hours of client time. I know the maps and the mechanics. I am speaking with that knowledge in mind. I still disagree with your assessment. Proper positioning and play can mitigate the RoA's "game-changing" potential. That's the crux of the argument, and I maintain it.
    You're ignoring what the ability can do by saying 'don't put yourself in a position where it can be used like that'. As if you're playing against a fixed opponent who cannot do anything but follow a choreographed set of moves. You're playing against a human opponent, not a predictable AI. Your opponent can put you in a position where you cannot avoid it. Namely on the fire pit map and the one with the four pillars. The best option in many cases is simply to not attack because of this ability. But that's fine, I'm arguing for that. You'd read my posts I'm talking about the late game where it's not about that. It's about when there are tons of open spaces and it's a guessing game about where he put it rather than a logical location like it is in the early game where space is at a premium.

    If you want to tout your experience as saying this isn't accurate, then there's no discussion left to be had with you. I've shown situations where it's essentially a coin toss who wins or lose because of the ability, if your entire argument that says this is okay, is to just play so much better than your opponent that losing an entire turn to a maimed SS isn't able to determine the course of a game then I can't have a reasonable discussion about the efficacy of the ability.

    "Be so much better that the problem isn't a problem." Isn't a solution. Even if you are so good that it cannot impact the outcome of the game it does not change the power of the ability in the late game to flip a coin and cost a unit a turn without any recourse just a guessing game.

  8. #208
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    A couple of things: Magic might not be the game for everyone, but it is a game played by a huge competitive scene with big events all over the world. I don't think it is a broken game just because it has a little bit of randomness. You won't win any tourney with your 20% first turn win quota.

    Now RoA in late game. Honestly, it is a pretty weak ability in most lategame sitations. With lots of possible path picking the correct one consistently requires imba reading skills - I might well say it is impossible to consistently win end-game with RoA. Even winning once with it is not really that easy. You have to keep in mind, you give up a move and a wp for the chance to stop someones turn. If he does not step on the arrow you lost out completely. In contrast to that you can just shoot for a few str dmg or you can break armor for 2+ in that turn. RoA someone in lategame for the win is a super rare desperation move that can make an awesome comeback. Doing that consistently is pretty much impossible. (In contrast to e.g. kiting varl with a siege archer in lategame for the win).
    Finally, if you still think placing/evading arrows is no skill I can make plenty of examples where picking good moves is neither random nor trivial.

  9. #209
    I think at this point y'all should record and comment some games if you want to win folks over to your point of view.

    @Haeso: Maybe this is the sort of game where you can never say "I can force a win from this position," but instead is always about odds. If you want to increase the odds that you win from 90 to 95%, you'd better find a way to take out that SS before she can do stuff. If you can't eliminate that threat, in a sense you haven't won yet; you're still in too-close-to-call territory.

    In fully deterministic games with full information (meaning you can see all of your opponent's moves) like chess the endgame is just about going through the motions. This is not one of those games, but that doesn't mean it cannot be regarded as competitive; plenty of competitive games have random elements and imperfect information. Go best of three or best of five to determine the better player.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    A couple of things: Magic might not be the game for everyone, but it is a game played by a huge competitive scene with big events all over the world. I don't think it is a broken game just because it has a little bit of randomness. You won't win any tourney with your 20% first turn win quota.
    I wasn't saying it was imbalanced that you could do it (though I think it is.), I was saying it wasn't fun. Either to play against or with.


    Now RoA in late game. Honestly, it is a pretty weak ability in most lategame sitations. With lots of possible path picking the correct one consistently requires imba reading skills - I might well say it is impossible to consistently win end-game with RoA.
    You're missing my point, sorry if I was unclear. I know it's not a very good ability late game Leartes, I'm not saying it's overpowered! I apologize if that was how this appeared. I think it's a terrible ability late game! A 1/4 chance at best of landing late game without ranged taunt or an SRM knockback to ensure it is awful. But that doesn't mean that the 1/4 chance of it working being entirely game changing should be acceptable. I don't think an invisible trap can ever be anything but obnoxious to balance. You'll lose the majority of games playing like that, just like you will lose the majority by trying risky willpower boosted STR hits! But that doesn't make the games you win by doing it acceptable to me.


    Even winning once with it is not really that easy. You have to keep in mind, you give up a move and a wp for the chance to stop someones turn. If he does not step on the arrow you lost out completely. In contrast to that you can just shoot for a few str dmg or you can break armor for 2+ in that turn. RoA someone in lategame for the win is a super rare desperation move that can make an awesome comeback. Doing that consistently is pretty much impossible. (In contrast to e.g. kiting varl with a siege archer in lategame for the win).
    It's not how often you win with it leartes, it's that it can enable you to win when you otherwise should not be able. Again I apologize if I have made it sound like I think the ability is too good. I don't. I think it's not very good at all late game, I simply take issue with it's potential power - I don't think how rare it is it work is a fair trade off. Yes you'll lose most games trying to play like that, but you'll win some of them by getting lucky occasionally as opposed to outplaying your opponent. I dislike that mechanic a great deal.

    Finally, if you still think placing/evading arrows is no skill I can make plenty of examples where picking good moves is neither random nor trivial.
    I too can look at the 5x5 area around a SS and determine the rough probability of each square having the RoA in it - but that doesn't change I cannot know and it is still a guessing game. Does this not make sense?

  11. #211
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    IMO if you are being trapped by RoA in the lategame you did something wrong. You didn't bait her WP or you didn't kill the unit off entirely as you should have. You allowed a situation where the RoA gives advantage for another unit to follow up, etc. I've played a lot of late-game RoA matches, most of the ones I've won I won because of a miscalc by my opp (when I'm the trap thrower), and I've rarely if ever been in a situation where an RoA trap thrown by the other guy costed me the game. That's my experience. And I have a lot of it. That's the point. You're saying be better isn't a solution. But it is. It truly is. Re: "win when they shouldn't have"...I don't understand why they shouldn't have won. They outplayed you in that situation. Personally I think you're "ignoring what the ability can do" by the very nature of your argument. If you know what it can do, use your resources to prevent it. You can. It sounds like I'm simplifying it, but that's because it really is that simple.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-07-2013 at 04:32 PM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  12. #212
    Superbacker mindflare77's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    63
    Disclaimer: I am by no means that good of a player. I have maybe 60 games, and have only recently broken the .500 win/loss.

    I've been following this discussion for the past week or so, and found it extremely interesting. However, I'm still not quite understanding how the Rain of Arrows is luck lategame. To me, it seems more Game Theory than a coin flip or anything of the sort. I've used it effectively late game (Thrasher took the theoretically suboptimal path to the SS, ignored the Strongarm, and took an 8 Strength trap thanks to Puncture), but I've also had it used against me effectively. Neither are luck, in my opinion; they are thinking ahead, considering what the opponent is likely to do, and then acting accordingly. I could very well be missing something here, though.
    Avatar/banner done by StandSure.

  13. #213
    Senior Member loveboof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    137
    @ Haeso,

    I love the SS and have always used her in my team. I would definitely not use her if RoA was visible! It's as simple as that.

    I think that will be the case for everyone else as well. What you are proposing is the elimination of the whole class - she would be completely redundant!

    (That applies to RoA not ending the enemy turn too....)

  14. #214
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    Mindflare, I completely agree with the assertions in your post. That's a clear summation of my position (I'm a bit of a windbag ), thank you.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-07-2013 at 04:48 PM. Reason: typos
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I think at this point y'all should record and comment some games if you want to win folks over to your point of view.
    It's not really about that anymore, as I'm not suggesting the SS is an exceptionally powerful unit, I don't think it's a strategy that will result in a positive W/L reliably. I just think that the ability to pull games you'd otherwise lose out of the fire through sheer luck via multiple avenues of approach and he just happens to pick the one you threw a trap on is a gimmicky mechanic that adds little to the game. I really enjoy the way the RoA works early game where space is at a premium, I just think late game it's an obnoxious element.
    @Haeso: Maybe this is the sort of game where you can never say "I can force a win from this position," but instead is always about odds. If you want to increase the odds that you win from 90 to 95%, you'd better find a way to take out that SS before she can do stuff. If you can't eliminate that threat, in a sense you haven't won yet; you're still in too-close-to-call territory.
    Again this doesn't address the point I'm making, I understand that strategy, I do. Believe me I understand how to play the game. I'm saying it's late game far too powerful and it's balanced by being so rare to land - I'm saying I don't like that sort of mechanic. It's rolling the dice to be effective. It fails the majority of the time, but when it works it's incredibly potent.

    In fully deterministic games with full information (meaning you can see all of your opponent's moves) like chess the endgame is just about going through the motions. This is not one of those games, but that doesn't mean it cannot be regarded as competitive; plenty of competitive games have random elements and imperfect information. Go best of three or best of five to determine the better player.
    That's not true at all, and this game you can see all of your opponent's moves except RoA. It's the one exception to the rule. Everything else you can see and plan for reliably. You can attempt to mitigate RoA but you can never remove it's potential to stop a unit short of killing it.

    Again, I'm fine with it creating a blocking point, I'm not fine with it's power in the late game being very high but completely unreliable. I don't want to win 4/5 games against someone that relies on this strategy only to lose the fifth even when I've outplayed him but he happens to get lucky finally. That's not fun to me.

    If people prefer that, that's perfectly acceptable to prefer. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to enjoy that, all I'm saying is that I do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetjer View Post
    IMO if you are being trapped by RoA in the lategame you did something wrong.
    This is wholly inaccurate.
    You didn't bait her WP or you didn't kill the unit off entirely as you should have.
    or my opponent isn't terrible? Why is it my failing for not killing the unit rather than my opponent's good play of preventing it? This is a terrible way to frame an argument. I'm not playing against the AI where I know what it will do, I cannot reliably eliminate the SS cost effectively every game. Neither can you or anyone else.

    You allowed a situation where the RoA gives advantage for another unit to follow up, etc. I've played a lot of late-game RoA matches, most of the ones I've won I won because of a miscalc by my opp (when I'm the trap thrower), and I've rarely if ever been in a situation where an RoA trap thrown by the other guy costed me the game.
    Two out of 150~ games I've lost because of it, I'm not saying it's reliable. I'm saying the ability for it to win a game even if it's only one in a hundred, isn't a good thing because there's no reliable counterplay available to an invisible trap. They either get lucky or they do not. (Excluding the early game where space does not allow for multiple avenues, in which case it already functions like a blocker generally speaking.)

    That's my experience. And I have a lot of it. That's the point. You're saying be better isn't a solution. But it is. It truly is. Re: "win when they shouldn't have"...I don't understand why they shouldn't have won. They outplayed you in that situation. Personally I think you're "ignoring what the ability can do" by the very nature of your argument. If you know what it can do, use your resources to prevent it. You can. It sounds like I'm simplifying it, but that's because it really is that simple.
    If in a situation they lose 9 of ten games because they rely on luck, and win the tenth. Is that right? I don't think it is. I don't think the option to play badly and win rarely via luck should ever be possible. It's fine that you prefer it is. I do not. I'm not suggesting it's overpowered, I'm not suggesting that it needs to be nerfed. I'm saying it needs to be more consistent in the late game rather than usually useless and occasionally extremely powerful. I do not enjoy such a variance, especially one based on luck.

    I've had plenty of lucky hits from an RoA stop a unit, but again, only twice has it cost me the game as I usually am better than my opponent by such a degree that it doesn't matter. That doesn't make it less annoying however. It doesn't make the potential less. Powerful balanced by unreliability is not a fun mechanic to me. Even if they lose the majority of their games by doing it, the fact that they can win any of them by doing it is undesirable.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-07-2013 at 04:54 PM.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by loveboof View Post
    @ Haeso,

    I love the SS and have always used her in my team. I would definitely not use her if RoA was visible! It's as simple as that.

    I think that will be the case for everyone else as well. What you are proposing is the elimination of the whole class - she would be completely redundant!

    (That applies to RoA not ending the enemy turn too....)
    There are many ways to change the RoA and making it effective visible.

    1: Multiple traps that disappear once one is triggered. This is arguably even stronger, but a more consistent mechanic. I'd be fine with that.

    2: Make the visible traps more than one turn, maybe 2/3/4 based on rank - this way they might trigger them on purpose to prevent a wall being created.

    Do not either of those abilities appeal to you? I would use both of them more than I use the SS currently as I'm not a gambling man.

    I could offer more alternatives if people would like to see them. I'm quite certain you can make a similar and effective ability would like to use that isn't relying on a guessing game mechanic.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-07-2013 at 05:01 PM.

  17. #217
    Fair enough, but "not true at all" is a little silly. As you've identified, in this case there is indeed one place where there's imperfect information. Hence, it's true. New units may well introduce it in other places.

    (As I've probably already made apparent) I think if you put yourself in a position where your opponent can eek out a win 1/5th of the time, it is what it is. You haven't played so well as to consistently beat that player. Still, I personally don't enjoy that sort of play either. Really, when a player near my ability opens with a couple successful wp-boosted 80% shots on my archer(s), that's distinctly un-fun.

  18. #218
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    or my opponent isn't terrible? Why is it my failing for not killing the unit rather than my opponent's good play of preventing it? This is a terrible way to frame an argument. I'm not playing against the AI where I know what it will do, I cannot reliably eliminate the SS cost effectively every game. Neither can you or anyone else.
    Your argument is getting nuanced to the point that you're actually contradicting yourself. If they prevented you from killing a high-asset unit, weren't you outplayed? Same as if they prevented you from maiming a WM, cornered another unit to prevent pillage, and exploited a turn advantage to decimate your team? How is it different? I think the difference is that the SS is perhaps less effective in late game, as we've all noted (i think she's pretty awesome there, but that's a different topic), you thusly underestimate her, and lose a fraction of your games as a result.

    This is wholly inaccurate.
    Agree to disagree. I can refute your argument with a write-off statement like that as well, but as far as rhetoric goes it just doesn't work. It doesn't contribute anything to the discourse.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-08-2013 at 03:22 AM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    Fair enough, but "not true at all" is a little silly. As you've identified, in this case there is indeed one place where there's imperfect information. Hence, it's true. New units may well introduce it in other places.
    I was referring to chess being 'going through the motions.


    (As I've probably already made apparent) I think if you put yourself in a position where your opponent can eek out a win 1/5th of the time, it is what it is. You haven't played so well as to consistently beat that player. Still, I personally don't enjoy that sort of play either. Really, when a player near my ability opens with a couple successful wp-boosted 80% shots on my archer(s), that's distinctly un-fun.
    Indeed, I'm not a fan of that stuff either. I'd much prefer willpower adding strength to the calculation rather than damage directly so it increases accuracy first.

    Quote Originally Posted by sweetjer View Post
    Your argument is getting nuanced to the point that you're actually contradicting yourself.
    Ehm? I'm not. At all, unless you choose to take the words I'm using to mean something other than what they're intended to.

    If they prevented you from killing a high-asset unit, weren't you outplayed?
    Four equal approaches to a varl, only one can be trapped. 1/4 chance of hitting a trap, you mean to tell me it's 'outplayed' to hit a 1/4 trap? That's silly, Sweetjer. Just silly.

    Same as if they prevented you from maiming a WM, cornered another unit to prevent pillage, and exploited a turn advantage to decimate your team? How is it different?
    Because there's counterplay to all of those things, the warhawk tempest hitting two units? You can avoid that with good play. The RoA can be mitigated with good play, never truly avoided.

    I think the difference is that the SS is way less effective in late game, as we've all noted (i think she's pretty awesome there, but that's a different topic), you thusly underestimate her, and lose a fraction of your games as a result.
    I don't underestimate her at all. Late game she's almost completely useless aside from puncture. Like I said I've only lost two games out of well over a hundred because of it - it's hardly ever an issue and the majority of traps used against me result in no hits - just because it usually results in a loss for my opponent doesn't mean I like it. The majority of games that my opponent relies on luck to win - they will lose. I simply don't like that they have the option to win due to luck at all.
    Last edited by Haeso; 04-07-2013 at 05:58 PM.

  20. #220
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    RE: my perception of you contradicting yourself was when you said "they didn't deserve the win" and then a post later said that you couldn't prevent the unit cause the player was good enough to stop you. I think if they were good enough to preserve the SS and make a huge endgame RoA play that either threw you off your plan or caused you to wander into a 1/4 chance trap, then you were outplayed. They deserved the win. That's the contradiction to which I refer. Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your assertion.

    I don't underestimate her at all. Late game she's almost completely useless aside from puncture.
    There's another contradiction right there. I disagree she's useless. Not as effective? Maybe. Played smartly, very useful. Sounds like you're underestimating her to me.

    That said I think I'm going to disengage from this conversation as we are now going in circles and again discussing what amounts to preference. personally I don't like the thrasher. Do I think he's broken? Not anymore, no. Personal preference. Thanks for responding to me so promptly and thoroughly. Interesting conversation, though I don't think either of us gained much ground convincing the other party of their view. See ya on the battlefield!
    Last edited by sweetjer; 04-07-2013 at 06:08 PM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •