Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
Then you haven't seen a decent set of monks...
|
You're absolutely right. I have never encountered a decent *set* of monks in Fort Aspenwood. I have encountered individually skilled monks on quite a few occasions, and in those cases I've had little trouble blasting through the other gate.
Would two good monks be problematic? Sure. But in my experience, two good players *period*, no matter what role or side they're on, wins around 80-90% of the time. Sure each side gets eight players, but a clear majority of those players serve little useful purpose in a match other than to feed the other side faction and XP. The apex of their usefulness seems to be distracting the shitters on the other side, fighting to some useless stalemate over nothing. You only really notice the shitters when you have a bunch of AFKers and you no longer have any to distract theirs and you get a constant wave of them in your face because of it...anyway.
Of the useful functions I've seen on the other team - that is, capturing mines and running amber, killing turtles, and protecting a group of NPCs via bonds or otherwise - the third is significantly below the other two on my list. They are the only one of the three that I can completely play around by attacking the other gate. Doesn't make 'em useless. Just makes 'em less important than a good player doing something else.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
also stipulating that at start (simply stating dibs on orange/purple others focus on defense gate purple/orange)
|
Have you found a way to actually make people listen? I've never been on a team where the so-called leaders are anything other than openly mocked. If you have a technique to organize your shitters into actually doing something useful, instead of getting blown up by turtles a lot, then you should definitely be winning the vast, vast majority of your games.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
I never have even encountered a fast enough rush to get done what you suggest.
|
Fast enough? Nothing about fast. You just have to eventually get that turtle through the other gate, and have a turtle parked in their area proper. Only time you're in a hurry is if they have another good player in addition to a bonder - someone who's good at killing turtles or controlling mines - and those matches you lose consistently anyway.
Understand my perspective - from that of a Luxon player on a team that is guaranteed to have at least one competent Luxon player, myself. If I'm up against a team of utter n00b Kurzicks, which does happen a good majority of the time, I'm just going to win without any fancy tactics being needed 90+% of the time. The same holds true when I played on the Kurzick side, half the time the Luxon team is completely clueless and never poses a threat. I honestly have no clue what goes on in a match without any good players.
The only matches that are really interesting are those with a decent number of good players on each side. What I'm saying is that straight up, if the only good player on the other team is a bonder, that I feel I have a significant advantage because he has little tactical flexibility. If the other good player is a warrior running amber or a ranger killing my turtles, then the match is going to be ugly. If there are multiple good players on one team the match is going to end quickly. If there are multiple good players on both teams? Can't say I've ever seen that situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
multiple times held the green gate on my own even with bots/afk-ers.
|
I've been in that situation before, playing monk for Kurzick. Sometimes the Luxon team doesn't have a clue and your chaff will keep their warriors busy for the full time. Easy win. Sometimes they aren't as terrible and take down the NPCs. Not as often granted, because odds are the other team won't have a good player, but when they do it's not trivial.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
a bonding monk on his own only has a problem when under heavy enchantstrips or well of the profane. But knowing the random character this hasn't happened that much yet (maybe 10 - 20 times).
|
Agreed. Not to belabor the point, but most teams are terrible. Maybe Luxon teams are terrible more often than Kurzick teams, I don't know. You should beat terrible teams.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
In any case when the kurzich side has bonders active on both sides then the rest has the time to disrupt controll of the mines, disrupt siege turtles, kill commanders and run amber through the gates not under heavy siege.
|
They have time to, sure. Do they do it? Not terribly often. Give a W/Mo an hour and he'll more likely than not spend it attacking other W/Mos. It sucks, but it's what you have to deal with. If you get even a fraction of what could be done on Fort Aspenwood actually accomplished you're almost certainly going to win.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Renegade ++RIP++
in the end the point is defense and disruption, not offense that prevails.
|
Well I can definitely understand why you'd think that. I'm assuming you're a decent player, and you're playing monk and bonding a gate, so it should be obvious that in the matches that you win it will often be because you were extremely effective at holding gates up. When I was playing the Kurzick side as a bonder I won games for precisely the same reason. Also, when I was playing on the Kurzick side assassinating turtles we won games because I killed those turtles. When I captured mines and consistently kept gates repaired we won because of that. You get a biased sample because you're a part of it. What you would be better off commenting on is what Luxon tactics are effective, because you are *not* screwing up their sample with your presence.
From playing on the Luxons I'm trying to share what was been most effective, what has made me lose. To reiterate, the most effective things have been aggressive control of the mines, and rangers picking off turtles with degen. This is largely because I've been playing offensive characters - if I was a monk, I might be complaining about bonders a lot more and degen rangers a lot less. Maybe that's the difference. In any case, playing on Luxon offense, bonders, while effective, were not the most effective I've seen out of the Kurzicks. Usually I lose to rangers or other degen characters killing turtles - less so to people aggressively controlling the mines, but that's more because it's so rarely done. Solitary bonders haven't had that kind of impact. Multiple good bonders? Sure. Just have never seen that. Can't be very many random teams that pop up with not only two good players, but two good players on bonder.
Peace,
-CxE