Let me make my point more clear: MoA proved that a) it is possible to win with trush vs op map (see vinch v modri g2 onwards) but can also utterly fail (modri vinch g1); and b) trush is not OP because you can defend it (see Viper games). The fact that inexperienced players died to it merely proves just that: that it's strong vs inexperienced players, not that it's OP. BUT I said earlier that you can learn to defend against trush, tell me do you disagree with this? Especially now since it's become such a prevalent strat you should even be more able to anticipate it and deal with it. In MoA many players just got caught by surprise with the trush strat I think (otherwise their way of trying to deal with it was mostly really poor) - Now it should not be a surprise anymore.Firstly you claim that it proves trush is not luck based because people with wonderful maps got gged by trush.
This actually does the opposite to the point you are trying to pursue. Either you have the scenario where people with op maps died to trush because they had no experience fighting it, or you have to say that trush is op based on this logic. One is an irrelevant argument, the other is contradictory to your agenda.
I was responding to s.o. making that claim.Your claim that trush games are not one dimensional is also irrelevant
That's not true as well. There are more Options with bad map: 1 tc push, cd, monk rush, etc ... trush is just one more of them and imo there is nothing wrong with it.This limits the game in many cases to one strategy, called trush
Lol most Arena games are still boom games which is the most 1 dim start it can get, and again there is nothing wrong with it imo.All together this turns arena into a 1 dimensional START to the game in a lot of cases
Why do you say "every game" i don't get it, who advocated for that? who spoke against the other strats u mention here ?? Trush is not the most viable option in every scenario.No more fwd castles, monk rush, boom, mangenol push, relic control; just every game trush, and lets see what happens next.
Even if that was true: What's wrong with it, why are only "Standard Arena tactics" allowed? However, it's not even true: Just recently I played a Burmese war vs Dracont where I trushed and the game turned out a long standard burmese war game with arambai hussar fights and equal ecos. Just an example, I played and saw other games where both players got to the late stage with strong ecos and long fights after initial trushI think the thing that you are missing, is that by the time the trush part of the game is over, both sides have very different ecos than just a simple fc and the game has completely changed from standard arena tactics.
I think you missed my point here. All I'm sayin is: everyone has strong emotions against / for specific strats, but that doesn't constitute a valid justification for nerfing said strat. The point of aoe in my mind is not to play only against strats you personally approve of, rather it's about countering whatever strategy the enemy comes up with.Also its very true that many arguments are emotional, but in the context of aoc that is a very valid argument and illogical to dismiss 11. It comes down to what people enjoy, and seeing arena turn into a 80% tower party every game only is not what most people want.
Last edited: