|
The way this clovis dude spells out words is really funny
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Clovis statistical data company is life
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
if you think clovis that a scenario player like tunder etc can beat you on a random map then you either underestimate yourself or you really are bad at new maps.
I have more that 2 years in this game... I had played many 3vs3, 1vs1, whole map, scenarios. Obvious if we play one of his scenarios I'l lose, because it takes time for me to adapt to the envioment. A random map is another different issue.
where did i say i was purely 3v3? i said and i quote "i became the player i am today mainly through 3v3s and duels.". this is true, i didnt learn the gameplay of all the strats playing lord of the rings and game of thrones. most of the skills i picked up came from having my ass handed to me in duels and 3v3s.
so where exactly am i contradicting myself?
Laochra that is actually bullshit. there are a lot of suff you cant learn in 3vs3. Stop using suff like " mainly 3vs3" and "most of the skills" you are just leaving a hole for decline that you say that ( As you just did with "mainly 3vs3". So I will assume if I contradict your "most of the skills" setence you will just use "most" for cover youself.
Bro, dont compare 3vs3 with whole world & scenarios. you are just making youself ridiculous. Where is that laochra who say " I was raised playing 50k whole world"? Did you learned how to micromanage on 3vs3 10k eu+? Did you learned to make an effective use of concurrent attack, how to GW and MoS, how to make an effective use of your reinformeds in 3vs3 10k eu+?
Yes, there is A SMALL CHANCE no more that 1% that you learned " the basic" of theses concepts ( or you think you already learned it), and 99% playing world maps/scenarios.
Also,
More that 75% of the game is won by the team who have higher ranks / uk in their team / rush turn 3.
lol yea, and 60% of statistics are made up without evidence or research.
more that 100% of your statistics are made for the solery purpose of contradict me. In most the cw's and 3vs3 I play uk have the biggest advantage of win. Rushers also have a high advantage of win. So with higher rank teams for obvious reasons. So, maybe think before contradict me
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Lol clovis, i was mocking you with my statistics comment. and here you are pulling more statistics out of thin air.
and now i think youre arguing with me, just for the sake of it. because youre not making any sense. 1% 3v3s/duels and 99% worldmaps/scenarios lol what?
3v3s and duels taught me how to play countries and their strats to 100% efficiency, on every other map i play i also now aspire for that level. using every rein, conserving units on expansion, economising, attrition warfare, risk assessment and taking full country bonuses. ie a small thing like taking full russia south. an extra 60 income a turn seems irrelevant but over 10 turns thats 600 lost income. it would take me quite some time to list out everything ive learned from 3v3s and duels and trial and error.
if we're going to make up random stats, then my aw learning would me more 80% 3v3s and duels, 20% world games.
there are many scenarios where most of the strats are unusable because of either no air units or all units are listed as other. what exactly are you learning in them that youre not learning from competitive play that is comprises 99% of the aw learning curve lol. sure the gameplay on world games is a different ballgame once it goes to lategame but 99% of the aw learning curve?
you are raving.
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
My stats are valid I asked people via surveys
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Lol clovis, i was mocking you with my statistics comment. and here you are pulling more statistics out of thin air.
and now i think youre arguing with me, just for the sake of it. because youre not making any sense. 1% 3v3s/duels and 99% worldmaps/scenarios lol what?
3v3s and duels taught me how to play countries and their strats to 100% efficiency, on every other map i play i also now aspire for that level. using every rein, conserving units on expansion, economising, attrition warfare, risk assessment and taking full country bonuses. ie a small thing like taking full russia south. an extra 60 income a turn seems irrelevant but over 10 turns thats 600 lost income. it would take me quite some time to list out everything ive learned from 3v3s and duels and trial and error.
if we're going to make up random stats, then my aw learning would me more 80% 3v3s and duels, 20% world games.
there are many scenarios where most of the strats are unusable because of either no air units or all units are listed as other. what exactly are you learning in them that youre not learning from competitive play that is composes 99% of the aw learning curve lol. sure the gameplay on world games is a different ballgame once it goes to lategame but 99% of the aw learning curve?
you are raving.
Nice misunderstanding of my post. Makes me think you didnt read before post. No wort reply.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
lol, i think ive just been trollvis'd
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
SuperiorCacaocow Korisnički račun je izbrisan |
SuperiorCacaocow Korisnički račun je izbrisan
Even though Laochra often isn't as well informed as he thinks he is, he is right in this thread.
Desu's post put it all in a nutshell, that's why it's relevant here. (Don't know about the OP though, tl;dr.)
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
After reading over some of this argument, I have to note that some of the points Clovis is saying about learning stealth strats and micromanagement in scenarios and world can and are learnt in eu+ too, maybe on a smaller scale. Also the things you learn in eu+ (efficiency, strategy use etc) you do learn on a smaller scale in scenarios too. Point is it may not be fully the maps fault, but more the type of the players playing it. Some scenario players like long games with specific roles and other 3v3/1v1/world players like to basically try to win on their own or with 2-3 allies. Scenarios may be more of a bigger picture sort of game with each person specializing and focusing on playing their role hoping others do too. (which is why often ww2 is very heated and competitive, depending on others of serving their role too) Trying to compare both and decide which is ultimately better is very vague and just a matter of opinion. However skill wise you can't deny that default map (3-10k) brings more skill that can be taken in other maps while scenarios also develop skills but its usually only applicable to that certain or other scenarios due to its specialization-of-each-player nature.
----
We are not the same - I am a Martian.
We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
The fact that the large majority of the best players in this game come from the competitive team game community should speak for itself. Not sure why this conversation even needs to be had.
----
The church is near, but the road is icy... the bar is far away, but I will walk carefully...
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
What tact and acqui said, most of this is common sense. i wouldnt even have bothered having the argument but marcus' rather agressively stated opinion just cried out to be contradicted.
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
After reading over some of this argument, I have to note that some of the points Clovis is saying about learning stealth strats and micromanagement in scenarios and world can and are learnt in eu+ too, maybe on a smaller scale. Also the things you learn in eu+ (efficiency, strategy use etc) you do learn on a smaller scale in scenarios too. Point is it may not be fully the maps fault, but more the type of the players playing it. Some scenario players like long games with specific roles and other 3v3/1v1/world players like to basically try to win on their own or with 2-3 allies. Scenarios may be more of a bigger picture sort of game with each person specializing and focusing on playing their role hoping others do too. (which is why often ww2 is very heated and competitive, depending on others of serving their role too) Trying to compare both and decide which is ultimately better is very vague and just a matter of opinion. However skill wise you can't deny that default map (3-10k) brings more skill that can be taken in other maps while scenarios also develop skills but its usually only applicable to that certain or other scenarios due to its specialization-of-each-player nature.
Final Verdict: 3v3 etc, brings more skill than all scenarios apart from WW2. WW2 & 3v3 are just about the same
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
3v3 player can adapt to ww2 but ww2 player can't adağt 3v3 easily.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Napisao Roncho, 28.07.2014 at 15:43
3v3 player can adapt to ww2 but ww2 player can't adağt 3v3 easily.
^ This. In WW2 you can lose a stack of 50 units and be able to blow it off. You lose a stack of 50 in 3v3 it's gg. Basically what I'm saying is there is more micromangement in 3v3. Every unit is precious and valuable.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Napisao Roncho, 28.07.2014 at 15:43
3v3 player can adapt to ww2 but ww2 player can't adağt 3v3 easily.
^ This. In WW2 you can lose a stack of 50 units and be able to blow it off. You lose a stack of 50 in 3v3 it's gg. Basically what I'm saying is there is more micromangement in 3v3. Every unit is precious and valuable.
Clearly you've never played Japan in ww2.
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Napisao Roncho, 28.07.2014 at 15:43
3v3 player can adapt to ww2 but ww2 player can't adağt 3v3 easily.
^ This. In WW2 you can lose a stack of 50 units and be able to blow it off. You lose a stack of 50 in 3v3 it's gg. Basically what I'm saying is there is more micromangement in 3v3. Every unit is precious and valuable.
Clearly you've never played Japan in ww2.
you lost 122 inf+gen and that was why you lost ._.
122 inf+gen>50 inf
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Napisao Roncho, 28.07.2014 at 15:43
3v3 player can adapt to ww2 but ww2 player can't adağt 3v3 easily.
^ This. In WW2 you can lose a stack of 50 units and be able to blow it off. You lose a stack of 50 in 3v3 it's gg. Basically what I'm saying is there is more micromangement in 3v3. Every unit is precious and valuable.
Clearly you've never played Japan in ww2.
you lost 122 inf+gen and that was why you lost ._.
122 inf+gen>50 inf
If you used infantry with Japan your doing it wrong. Tell a 3v3 player to play Japan and he'll use PD, IMP or GW and he'll never get past China. Therefor 3v3 players cannot adapt to scenarios. Even if I were to tell them they need to play DS i doubt they would know how to properly utilize the helicopters and starting infantry.
Scenario ≠ 3v3
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Umm no. Just no. You're saying because of the probability of an average 3v3 not being able to play one country in one scenario for the first time then default map players can't play scenarios. To make it clear; 3v3 players won't get it the first time or maybe the first 5 times, but they will surely adapt to the situation and transfer their usual skills to the scenario while gaining the specific ones brought from the scenario. Oh and, also, the part about 3v3 players not being able to "utilize" something is ridiculous. Utilizing units to max efficiency is a good player would do. Any units. No pls stop with this brainless comparison between default and scenarios.
----
We are not the same - I am a Martian.
We are not the same - I am a... divided constellation?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
yeah im scared now
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
yeah im scared now
everyone is D:
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
yeah im scared now
everyone is D:
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
yeah im scared now
everyone is D:
Omg i will go cris in corner now, u made puppy cris. GG.
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
I play imp japan half tanks half infantry and ive never lost east like ever.the thing is there are mechanics in scenarios that you dont need to pay much attention to, whereas in 3v3 if you dont, you are dead.turnblocking and moove order come to mind among other things.not even gonna mention scenarios with alliances on.
all in all ww2 is a great scenario that requires skill and speed, but a player cant be complete if he doesnt play 3v3 and 1v1 in europe.
Play against SQUARED
yeah im scared now
everyone is D:
Omg i will go cris in corner now, u made puppy cris. GG.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Omg i will go cris in corner now, u made puppy cris. GG.
no. i still sad
----
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Omg i will go cris in corner now, u made puppy cris. GG.
no. i still sad
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
Black Shark Korisnički račun je izbrisan |
Black Shark Korisnički račun je izbrisan
Bad GIFS are bad, and you should feel bad.
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|
|
Napisao Guest, 29.07.2014 at 08:54
Bad GIFS are bad, and you should feel bad.
sure?
Učitavanje...
Učitavanje...
|