12 February 2016 - 14:39 CET
lome you represent the NSL man, u can't fucking bm players...
sephy please do something about this
sephy please do something about this
http://i.imgur.com/hr1ud2u.png
ANALYSIS: S8 D1 R1 Final
12 February 2016 - 18:28 CET
Your argument: "My bm videos of you and several of your teammates was classy and funny, but you typing 'SHAZBOT!!' in-game was undignified and disrespectful." LOL! I'm sorry, but in real life the way trash talking goes is anything is fair game during the match (watch hockey trash talking!). The point is to get into people's heads (which apparently was the case for you guys). When all is said and done tho it's GG's and shake hands. But there you go, making bm videos afterwards. Which is really more disrespectful?
Then again, I'm an admin so I shouldn't be allowed to respond to any provocations!
Shazbot: In general, an exclamation of displeasement. Started on Mork and Mindy show, continued through Tribes and its various children (Tribes Aerial Assault, Tribes 2).
12 February 2016 - 18:32 CET
Damnit I'm out of popcorn.
Need more drama.
#simplenevercheated #simple4admin #chamsegos2big4dedgame #goldenisgay #locklurraimbotz #moredramaplz
Need more drama.
#simplenevercheated #simple4admin #chamsegos2big4dedgame #goldenisgay #locklurraimbotz #moredramaplz
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
12 February 2016 - 19:17 CET
I don't really know what to say Locklear, apart from that this is the same kind of attitude I saw and interpreted from your plays in the game. Your stance here is to pose yourself as the victim of some injust criticism instead of trying to debate it. I believe you were the better team (I could be wrong) and I believe it was foolish (better word?) to deviate from the meta, and I've explained why. I think it was a bad decision based on underconfidence/overconfidence/poor decision with no basis but "fun" over "winning" which is not clever. I'm sorry I've phrased it in a way that has upset you but I have no intention of doing anything other than trying to show how I believe (and I could be wrong) that the game was lost because of a naive mental state.
NS1 is a different game and I really don't know what to say if you expect to make direct parallels with NS2.
In previous analysis I've made comments on fantastic plays done by individual players and teams which have turned losses into victories. This game was completely different though and I truly feel like Spookerz lost it more than Lucky Chams won it, although saying that Lucky Chams played a fantastically standard game. This is nothing but my analysis and interpretation, it is no personal vendetta.
Lamb is my oldest friend in NS2, I think Spring is great, and I had nothing but praise for crazy earlier in the season, but in my eyes it does not excuse them from my criticism (albeit it subjective or objective).
If you think I'm wrong in my criticism then I'm surprised instead of creating a victim complex you don't just say something along the lines of "GG, lucky chams were the better team" and prove me wrong by giving them the respect here on the forums.
I agree that lome was bming but imo what does it matter (outside of sportsmanship) when you don't let it compromise your plays and win. If you bm and lose it looks bad. I think it's great that we have bm between similar skilled teams and players because it creates rivalry and entertainment (and so I think of it more as banter), I think it's bad when we have bm between differently skilled teams and players because that creates a toxic community.
Medically a delusion is an unshakeable belief outside of cultural norms that won't be changed despite evidence to suggest otherwise.
Ok Simba, yes scrims are an exception, I was talking exclusively about officials, I suppose I should have made that clear.
I played with spookerz and with chams before the finals and I played against spookers before the finals and I just felt like spookers were no.1 going into this match. I did not expect to see such a one sided game and with moments where it seriously made me think "Is this a div 2 side?".
No he said he did it because he prefered it over turtling and because he enjoys these strats.
I have to make assumptions on why people made decisions because I don't have access to their thought process. If I didn't make these assumptions then I can't explain the rationale behind things and thus can't say what is good/bad.
12 February 2016 - 19:59 CET
Sure, I guess that's true. I just think we all disagree with your belief in the intentions of SpookerZ, and I am more inclined to believe what all of us in the match (on both teams) were the intentions. Of course we can never expect an analyst to know third hand what is really going through people's minds :)
Let's agree to disagree!
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
12 February 2016 - 20:12 CET
I'm ok with that. It's not something I can prove
12 February 2016 - 23:48 CET
No victim complex, as I said I don't mind the criticism. However, the condescending tone and basically just saying "lol you're stupid because you didn't do standard meta" just isn't cool.
Lucky Chams were the better team, I think that was pretty clear. I have had, for some time, the utmost respect for several of their players.
Just pointing out that the theory you based your entire analysis on was an incorrect one based on false information. That was the only goal. Through this video you were spreading some exterior information that simply wasn't true. "Drilling for 6 hours" - "Disrespect their opponent"
It's almost as if you were making excuses for us, trying to find some reason why we played poorly. You guys aren't bad, you're just tired or feeling OP.
Instead of focusing on theories on why you think we did those strategies, I think it's more helpful to do what you *mostly* did and that's break down where things went wrong.
That was the part I actually enjoyed most of the videos.
Lucky Chams were the better team, I think that was pretty clear. I have had, for some time, the utmost respect for several of their players.
Just pointing out that the theory you based your entire analysis on was an incorrect one based on false information. That was the only goal. Through this video you were spreading some exterior information that simply wasn't true. "Drilling for 6 hours" - "Disrespect their opponent"
It's almost as if you were making excuses for us, trying to find some reason why we played poorly. You guys aren't bad, you're just tired or feeling OP.
Instead of focusing on theories on why you think we did those strategies, I think it's more helpful to do what you *mostly* did and that's break down where things went wrong.
That was the part I actually enjoyed most of the videos.
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
13 February 2016 - 11:59 CET
I fully expected spookerz to walk away with this season 4-2 or even 4-0 in the finals.
Spookerz used tactics that were "fun" and "enjoyable" over standard play. You got your priorities mixed up in a finals match. In my opinion, this is not a well thought out approach to a game if you want to win.
Spookerz had the skill to win. You averaged 27.63% accuracy on marines. It was not aim that let you down, it was tech route, initial strat, and early game plays that lead to a snowball effect you were very aware was possible on veil.
Why did you choose this tech route if not for shock and awe or feeling underprepared? For fun or enjoyment or to take inspiration from ns2.
Why did you lose a lot of 1on1s early? Fatigue and/or carelessness.
My whole point is that Spookerz threw this game by not focusing on their play. They let the mental side of the game slip and things spiraled out of control.
I can never objectively say anything about this game because we simply don't have stats to back anything up. Everything I say is my subjective opinion on how the game should be played. You are encouraged to dispute anything I say and if you want, ignore anything I say. It is up to you to decide whether you think what I say is right or wrong, not for you to decide what I should or should not speculate on. I will speculate on anything I think is worthy of having influenced the outcome of the game, and the most important thing I saw that resembled Spookerz on that day was their ability to tilt mentally and screw themselves over.
Yes breaking down plays is an important aspect of analysis but I truly feel like the most important and standout point in this game was the drastic change in attitude to plays made and this comes down to what I believe was this mental fracture.
Spookerz used tactics that were "fun" and "enjoyable" over standard play. You got your priorities mixed up in a finals match. In my opinion, this is not a well thought out approach to a game if you want to win.
Spookerz had the skill to win. You averaged 27.63% accuracy on marines. It was not aim that let you down, it was tech route, initial strat, and early game plays that lead to a snowball effect you were very aware was possible on veil.
Why did you choose this tech route if not for shock and awe or feeling underprepared? For fun or enjoyment or to take inspiration from ns2.
Why did you lose a lot of 1on1s early? Fatigue and/or carelessness.
My whole point is that Spookerz threw this game by not focusing on their play. They let the mental side of the game slip and things spiraled out of control.
I can never objectively say anything about this game because we simply don't have stats to back anything up. Everything I say is my subjective opinion on how the game should be played. You are encouraged to dispute anything I say and if you want, ignore anything I say. It is up to you to decide whether you think what I say is right or wrong, not for you to decide what I should or should not speculate on. I will speculate on anything I think is worthy of having influenced the outcome of the game, and the most important thing I saw that resembled Spookerz on that day was their ability to tilt mentally and screw themselves over.
Yes breaking down plays is an important aspect of analysis but I truly feel like the most important and standout point in this game was the drastic change in attitude to plays made and this comes down to what I believe was this mental fracture.
13 February 2016 - 15:38 CET
Holy shit, how do you keep droning on with this crap about us using "fun" and "enjoyable" strats instead of trying to win with standard meta when members of BOTH teams are telling you this is not the case?
SpookerZ lost because we had communication problems and bad rotations. Plain and simple. Any of the strats we ran were viable and had just as much chance to work as a standard game. Just because you don't understand their intention, nor how they work, does not render then in the "disrespect your opponents" category.
I've talked about this match several times on the stream. We had an issue that is very common in new teams - people were afraid to be open and honest with their opinions and feelings as well as being afraid to take risks after being blamed for losses in some of our scrims. This makes communication shutdown and causes players to not have faith in themselves or their teammates. If you watch the match from my pov, you can hear us (or not hear us as the case may be) fail to correct any of the mistakes we were making.
SpookerZ lost because we had communication problems and bad rotations. Plain and simple. Any of the strats we ran were viable and had just as much chance to work as a standard game. Just because you don't understand their intention, nor how they work, does not render then in the "disrespect your opponents" category.
I've talked about this match several times on the stream. We had an issue that is very common in new teams - people were afraid to be open and honest with their opinions and feelings as well as being afraid to take risks after being blamed for losses in some of our scrims. This makes communication shutdown and causes players to not have faith in themselves or their teammates. If you watch the match from my pov, you can hear us (or not hear us as the case may be) fail to correct any of the mistakes we were making.
13 February 2016 - 16:08 CET
________$$$$$$$$_Simba_$$$$$$$$$___
______$$$$$$$$$$$$__$$$$$$$$$$$$$_
______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$_
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
_______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$__
__________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$______
_____________$$$$$$$$$$$$$________
________________$$$$$$$___________
__________________$$$_____________
___________________$_____________
______$$$$$$$$$$$$__$$$$$$$$$$$$$_
______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$_
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
_____$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
_______$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$__
__________$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$______
_____________$$$$$$$$$$$$$________
________________$$$$$$$___________
__________________$$$_____________
___________________$_____________
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
13 February 2016 - 16:15 CET
Because I don't believe you or because I think you're wrong. There's no decent reason to flame me, you can literally just disagree with me and I've already said I'm happy with that. I'm completely ok with being wrong and the reason I'm "droning on" is because you say my analysis is wrong based on this one assumption. I asked for debate, and people started offering their PoV, so I continued to debate mine. This is a good way for everyone involved to appreciate multiple aspects of the game, not least (I still argue) the mental aspect and not having a champion's attitude.
Standard meta is there precisely because it's the least chaotic and most stable approach to the game in order to win through PvP frags. Doing something like 0-0 SG push early shakes things up and makes the first few engagements super determinant of the rest of the game. If you think this has "just as much chance to work as a standard game" I can not continue to debate this with you because it's just a fundamental truth and definition of "meta game".
Standard meta is there precisely because it's the least chaotic and most stable approach to the game in order to win through PvP frags. Doing something like 0-0 SG push early shakes things up and makes the first few engagements super determinant of the rest of the game. If you think this has "just as much chance to work as a standard game" I can not continue to debate this with you because it's just a fundamental truth and definition of "meta game".
13 February 2016 - 17:26 CET
Honestly, i think euros are just salty because our (half) euro hope for a spot in the hall of fame let us down.
And that, only because they were disrespectfully throwing for skins.
When can we finally bet black armor on NS2 matches?
And that, only because they were disrespectfully throwing for skins.
When can we finally bet black armor on NS2 matches?
http://i.imgur.com/hr1ud2u.png
14 February 2016 - 05:49 CET
what a dumb debate
1. spookerz had poor communication and scrim results which led to a spiral effect in which they got, arguably, worse over the weeks before the final.
2. Standard meta generally is better than deviations, most especially when employed by the superior team. This doesn't mean deviations cannot work or that they can;'t be more effective when thrown in at particular points, but in general, there is a reason why a particular meta becomes standard much as there is a particular reason why particular strategies are more evolutionarily stable than others (more often than not they work), but you still have some others that co-exist albeit at lower frequencies. This is just game theory. Again think of Nadal hitting his topspin forehand to Federer's backhand when he serves; he does it most of the time, but sometimes hits to Federer's forehand because Federer is expecting the standard meta from Nadal, gets caught off guard, and is outright aced.
1. spookerz had poor communication and scrim results which led to a spiral effect in which they got, arguably, worse over the weeks before the final.
2. Standard meta generally is better than deviations, most especially when employed by the superior team. This doesn't mean deviations cannot work or that they can;'t be more effective when thrown in at particular points, but in general, there is a reason why a particular meta becomes standard much as there is a particular reason why particular strategies are more evolutionarily stable than others (more often than not they work), but you still have some others that co-exist albeit at lower frequencies. This is just game theory. Again think of Nadal hitting his topspin forehand to Federer's backhand when he serves; he does it most of the time, but sometimes hits to Federer's forehand because Federer is expecting the standard meta from Nadal, gets caught off guard, and is outright aced.
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
14 February 2016 - 13:22 CET
Let me rephrase 1 important thing.
I didn't mean disrespect as an intentional action to be douchebags, I meant it in a manner of not having enough respect of their opponents and competition, and mental aptitude to become champions.
I didn't mean disrespect as an intentional action to be douchebags, I meant it in a manner of not having enough respect of their opponents and competition, and mental aptitude to become champions.
15 February 2016 - 14:00 CET
I think we've definitely found common ground with that statement.
However, I would like to stand on my points that if teams were willing to actually think outside the box a bit, the types of strategies we employed could easily become a part of standard meta and something you would expect from a NS2 team in a regular match.
Arms Lab -> 2/2 with shotguns -> PGs -> 3/2 -> JP or ARC or any slightly different combination of the sort isn't the only viable way to go on marine and be considered within the realm of "standard meta" imo.
The fact that we didn't see a single HMG or very few (might be mistaken since I haven't extensively reviewed the past two finals) in the past two finals actually blows my mind.
In theory, a HMG / JP should be the ultimate pvp weapon. I would've expected to see them on the field in any game with JPs. I almost think that they should be unlocked with the AA or that the AA time / cost should be increased along with that just to see them used more.
However, I would like to stand on my points that if teams were willing to actually think outside the box a bit, the types of strategies we employed could easily become a part of standard meta and something you would expect from a NS2 team in a regular match.
Arms Lab -> 2/2 with shotguns -> PGs -> 3/2 -> JP or ARC or any slightly different combination of the sort isn't the only viable way to go on marine and be considered within the realm of "standard meta" imo.
The fact that we didn't see a single HMG or very few (might be mistaken since I haven't extensively reviewed the past two finals) in the past two finals actually blows my mind.
In theory, a HMG / JP should be the ultimate pvp weapon. I would've expected to see them on the field in any game with JPs. I almost think that they should be unlocked with the AA or that the AA time / cost should be increased along with that just to see them used more.
15 February 2016 - 15:21 CET
I'm not gonna go deep meta but the marine strats you employed are kinda anti-strated by the way chams play the game.
You go for a fast reloc on a tech point where ips can be bile bombed against a team that plays around it's (good) gorge (fast celerity, bile bomb)?
You rush sgs and pressure nano with only one sg when the lerks ain't up? Why not commit team res for welders and get 3 sgs in?
saunamen late reloc: cap both naturals with a 3 2 split, get early picks on sides, then push up mid with 5 to reloc, is prolly the safest way to relocate.
The way they teamplay is great but people downplay Simba's techpath and res management wich carries alot of games for them.
The scans + shaded drifters placements etc...
And sorry but the SG is still the best weapon in the game, chams probably doesnt have better lmgs than you did but their SGS have a massive impact on the game.
Cata sg, jp sg over shitty hmg anyday.
Edit: What do you guys think of no player damage numbers on bilebomb btw? To remove a free wallhack? With max duration you get constant info on rines around corners.
Edit2: And btw they abused the current meta perfectly exactly like Grissi abused babblers.
The idea to bring those back is totally fucking retarded btw. No skill shit stuff should stay on pubs. (No BM intended to Grissi, since finding meta loopholes is an awesome skill trait to have, and he was great at this).
You go for a fast reloc on a tech point where ips can be bile bombed against a team that plays around it's (good) gorge (fast celerity, bile bomb)?
You rush sgs and pressure nano with only one sg when the lerks ain't up? Why not commit team res for welders and get 3 sgs in?
saunamen late reloc: cap both naturals with a 3 2 split, get early picks on sides, then push up mid with 5 to reloc, is prolly the safest way to relocate.
The way they teamplay is great but people downplay Simba's techpath and res management wich carries alot of games for them.
The scans + shaded drifters placements etc...
And sorry but the SG is still the best weapon in the game, chams probably doesnt have better lmgs than you did but their SGS have a massive impact on the game.
Cata sg, jp sg over shitty hmg anyday.
Edit: What do you guys think of no player damage numbers on bilebomb btw? To remove a free wallhack? With max duration you get constant info on rines around corners.
Edit2: And btw they abused the current meta perfectly exactly like Grissi abused babblers.
The idea to bring those back is totally fucking retarded btw. No skill shit stuff should stay on pubs. (No BM intended to Grissi, since finding meta loopholes is an awesome skill trait to have, and he was great at this).
15 February 2016 - 16:11 CET
The problem I have with HMGs is not my awful tracking, but the fact that it can't kill PvE which is a huge part of this game. You basically need to have a teamate with you to clear a room withwhips/crags/etc. SGs are king cuz its high burst damage on lifeforms and its ability to to kill structures at the same time.
There's definitely some niche uses for HMG like countering double onos, but since they needed the structure damage on them they became only an Onos counter to me.
There's definitely some niche uses for HMG like countering double onos, but since they needed the structure damage on them they became only an Onos counter to me.
15 February 2016 - 16:30 CET
While I agree that Chams have better sg'ers than they do lmg'ers for the most part.. the part about HMG being shitty I don't quite understand.
HMG changes the dynamic of the game once again, putting yourself in a good position and being able to put out incredible amounts of damage to aliens (similar to one good sg shot) but at a much longer range can make marines untouchable similar to one good lmg in good position against multiple skulks.
Fades can't even get close to you when supported or risk dieing. Lerks peek for a second and can get blown out of the sky.
A HMG has no vulnerability except during reload and vs structures. If properly supported, it's an incredible PvP weapon capable of extremely high amounts of DPS, 18 damage per shot at W3.
If you throw in catpacks, like you mentioned.. that even takes away the reload vulnerability.
Just for the sake of more discussion on this, I would wager that the HMG and SG are equals in close quarters with the long range strength tipping the HMG in favor over the SG for pure PvP ability.
Even with mediocre tracking like my own in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9r-AH4S2NE
I put out 340 damage in *roughly* 1 second of tracking at W3. (first 3 bullets were reg'd before video starts) My tracking could definitely have been better there, leading to even more damage. The shotgun fire rate is 0.72 more or less. Firing three shots roughly every 1.5 seconds. 4 shots after 2.3 ish seconds.
Edit: (I did bad math at first) So in two seconds even in CQC, you could fire the shotgun three times and do 660 damage and potentially around 700 damage with the HMG. If the fight continues to 4 seconds, up to almost 950 damage vs 880. Which is truly more powerful in the right hands? I think they are pretty close to equal.
Don't get me wrong, I think the advantage is slight.. however the HMG has a place and should be used more often imo.
I think it's a great idea. It's definitely an edge case that gives the aliens too much information.
15 February 2016 - 16:51 CET
I understand what you mean and agree kind of but your view of fighting in ns2 revolves too much on 1v1 skill, maybe a little bit like spookerz did, no BM intended.
A better exemple of a teamfight: 1 sg w3 in a group fight if he is ok good hits a meat on a fade, a meat on the 2nd fade BOTH FADES HAVE TO RETREAT keep in mind HE DOESNT NEED TO TRACK THEM, he can between those shot twitch on incoming skulks.
Edit: we called that fire and forget with AT rocket in the army, you fire a shot instantly focus on the next target. Theorically i would argue SG is much easier to play than hmg: you just need to focus on what is coming to you ,no need to track anything.
But that's not the important part: if he wins the fight, his weapon is as good against structures so from a zoner/laner he INSTANTLY becomes a pve pusher.
PVP is not just about killing, 2 or 3 good shots on fades = fades out of the fight.
Edit: and don't get me started on the trapping capability of a SG in NS2.
So hmg in certain positions>SG, but overall not even close.
A better exemple of a teamfight: 1 sg w3 in a group fight if he is ok good hits a meat on a fade, a meat on the 2nd fade BOTH FADES HAVE TO RETREAT keep in mind HE DOESNT NEED TO TRACK THEM, he can between those shot twitch on incoming skulks.
Edit: we called that fire and forget with AT rocket in the army, you fire a shot instantly focus on the next target. Theorically i would argue SG is much easier to play than hmg: you just need to focus on what is coming to you ,no need to track anything.
But that's not the important part: if he wins the fight, his weapon is as good against structures so from a zoner/laner he INSTANTLY becomes a pve pusher.
PVP is not just about killing, 2 or 3 good shots on fades = fades out of the fight.
Edit: and don't get me started on the trapping capability of a SG in NS2.
So hmg in certain positions>SG, but overall not even close.
15 February 2016 - 17:02 CET
All good points, which would lead me to think about how we could make some changes to the HMG to better fit into NS2's gameplay.
Perhaps making it do slightly less damage or lowering clip size but allowing full structure damage.
I think I view HMG similar to Fade, it's a strictly PvP role. It requires diversity and teamwork to accomplish damage to structures using teammates when a HMG is present. Much like a Fade helping skulks bite RTs or clear a gate.
15 February 2016 - 17:16 CET
Exactly, in a team i do agree hmg is good but honestly a LMG w3 with a SG has the EXACT same impact if no onos present: the lmg w3 reks a lerk in 15ish ammos while SG reks close quarter.
The lmg still retains pve capability etc...
To me lmg w3 in ns2 nearly = ns1 hmg because of the easier tracking on lifeforms.
We all saw solo w3 lmgs killing full upgraded fades at some point...
A portable railgun with a pixel wide hit cone would be fun to test as a different path to hmg.
Edit: another aweful thing that is still not adressed is the fact that fade players are losing interest in the game since a long time and totally stopped try harding movements because they know they are half useless.
2 fades make a massive play and kill 5 rines in a room with pg: too bad if all skulks died marines will retake the room AND the weapons, it's hilariously bad, and a spit in the face of good fades.
Structure damage on them should definatly be higher.
Sry for Frenchglish.
The lmg still retains pve capability etc...
To me lmg w3 in ns2 nearly = ns1 hmg because of the easier tracking on lifeforms.
We all saw solo w3 lmgs killing full upgraded fades at some point...
A portable railgun with a pixel wide hit cone would be fun to test as a different path to hmg.
Edit: another aweful thing that is still not adressed is the fact that fade players are losing interest in the game since a long time and totally stopped try harding movements because they know they are half useless.
2 fades make a massive play and kill 5 rines in a room with pg: too bad if all skulks died marines will retake the room AND the weapons, it's hilariously bad, and a spit in the face of good fades.
Structure damage on them should definatly be higher.
Sry for Frenchglish.
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
15 February 2016 - 18:01 CET
I don't really want to see scenarios where 2 fades and skulks can clear 5 marines. Tough shit if your skulks died and you can't kill the PG. You shouldn't be able to so easily go head to head vs marines, you should have to pull them out of position and then use the fast mobility to re-group and crush marines with numbers.
I also don't want to see fade Sdmg buffed and the return of a fade ball...
I do think fades are weak and should probably get an HP buff or scale much better with biomass
Also, gorge bile bomb and lerk poison bite draw dmg nerf, yes pls
I also don't want to see fade Sdmg buffed and the return of a fade ball...
I do think fades are weak and should probably get an HP buff or scale much better with biomass
Also, gorge bile bomb and lerk poison bite draw dmg nerf, yes pls
15 February 2016 - 18:05 CET
I agree with this completely. I find it really difficult in the late game to continue to have a high impact on the outcome of fights when large groups of marines are cleared. I get to the gate and just get forced off by spawners having to swipe them 4-5 times and having done minimal damage to the gate.
It's almost a joke how little you can contribute to structures in like a 40 minute game.
Recalling some rounds from the past, I would see myself doing well with say 5 KDR or whatever / 80% swipe avg and 16k p damage but only 3k structure. That's like not even 1 single RT worth of structure damage. It may just be from skulking before Fade simply because I've given up on the idea of even helping with structures at this point unless I know it's super low.
HOWEVER, we would likely see "the fade ball" once more if we returned fades to previous levels of structure damage.
15 February 2016 - 18:51 CET
what if after x hits fade sdmg increased by like 50-100% depending on how you wanna balance it. would you feel better about hitting buildings?
15 February 2016 - 18:57 CET
"I don't really want to see scenarios where 2 fades and skulks can clear 5 marines. Tough shit if your skulks died and you can't kill the PG. "
Noone said that.
Atm it's a massive play if fades manage to win a fight against mutliple marines instead of picking off solo rines constantly because they are bad at anything else.
"You shouldn't be able to so easily go head to head vs marines, you should have to pull them out of position and then use the fast mobility to re-group and crush marines with numbers."
It's not should, it is a reality. Fades are not op in pvp terms so they should be rewarded for a very good play, buffing their sdamage would be good imo.
No disrespect :)
Noone said that.
Atm it's a massive play if fades manage to win a fight against mutliple marines instead of picking off solo rines constantly because they are bad at anything else.
"You shouldn't be able to so easily go head to head vs marines, you should have to pull them out of position and then use the fast mobility to re-group and crush marines with numbers."
It's not should, it is a reality. Fades are not op in pvp terms so they should be rewarded for a very good play, buffing their sdamage would be good imo.
No disrespect :)
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
15 February 2016 - 21:06 CET
? if 2 fades can do that, then it's not spitting in their faces because the whole map is open for res biting and thats how you win the game.
Should as in that it is correct the game works this way. This is what should happen and is what happens.
Fades get rewarded by making space for skulks to bite res and win the game. Unless you want more bonuses for the fades themselves instead of for the team?
15 February 2016 - 21:09 CET
Fades are gonna res bite?
You argue for the sake of argueing.
The alien team tries to break a pg in system, 2 fades go in with skulks, skulks get focused, fades still win the fight, at a big cost. Nothing gained. Fades are useless.
You argue for the sake of argueing.
The alien team tries to break a pg in system, 2 fades go in with skulks, skulks get focused, fades still win the fight, at a big cost. Nothing gained. Fades are useless.
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
15 February 2016 - 21:10 CET
Don't lose your skulks then?
Don't take a 5 man engagement then?
15 February 2016 - 21:14 CET
Your agrumentation is just focused on making the first point more complicated.
Let's add an exo in the mix with some bonewalls and catalysts.
Oh and a flamethrower don't forget the flamethrower.
Let's add an exo in the mix with some bonewalls and catalysts.
Oh and a flamethrower don't forget the flamethrower.
Wob
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
- Joined
- 18 January 2013
15 February 2016 - 21:21 CET
You start with a result and are trying to reverse engineer the scenario until you make new premises. If you do stuff like that you end up making unintended consequences in other parts of the game...
Start with a premise, make a change, say how the change will work, say the intended result, say any other positives and or negatives.
Start with a premise, make a change, say how the change will work, say the intended result, say any other positives and or negatives.