How do you guys manage to derail every thread into this nonsense?
*allegedly* 97%!!Allegedly on the 97.5% percentile, rather than the 97% percentile, I am holier than thou.
*allegedly* 97%!!
be careful what you wish for charlie - else one day you may face a guy doing lithuanians miltia vs you, and at the same time double luring your boars. you seem to be completely unable to understand that this game would be dead if everyone were doing silly strats like this every game. you should tell us more about the Incas conspiracy... do you actually take yourself seriously?
agreedIt's a 20 year old pc video game, I would hope no one here takes themselves seriously.
there is no strat which is unbeatable.On topic -- for some, the meta strats are cheese strats. This strategy is completely beatable, not overpowered, and relies on skill/timing understanding and enemy misplay in order to be successful.
I have made my stance on both scout rushing and the current power level of the archer line very clear so you do not need to convince me of this.On topic -- for some, the meta strats are cheese strats.
generally, you mean? that's not true, you can certainly balance a game in a way that would create an unbeatable strategy. Cuman Steppe Lancers when DE came out came very close. give a civ a cobra car in dark age and you have an unbeatable strat.there is no strat which is unbeatable.
Yeah, because it wasn't a comparison at all. Your brain makes everything related to the things you talk about even when people talk about something else.Moderately related, since you mentioned it -- I'm not sure it's a fair comparison -- a well balanced and perfectly beatable strategy to DE release Steppe Lancers.
Yeah, because it wasn't a comparison at all. Your brain makes everything related to the things you talk about even when people talk about something else.
This is the main problem, most players (even in ranked) play mainly because they want to have fun. That's why they often look down on lamers, vilrushers etc, sometimes even civ-pickers or wallersAfter all, the point of the game is not for my opponent to have fun, it is to defeat my opponent.
Well, excluding cheats of course. There is no doubt that there are some strats which are very strong, but unbeatable is an absurd choice of word.generally, you mean? that's not true, you can certainly balance a game in a way that would create an unbeatable strategy. Cuman Steppe Lancers when DE came out came very close. give a civ a cobra car in dark age and you have an unbeatable strat.
Indeed, indeed.What the heck, dude, this post is not an answer to my post at all. You are just repeating yourself and now you're not even TRYING anymore to take into account what the other person said. You make yourself look like you're having some sort of mental disorder. I feel like you're quite an intelligent guy, please stop communicating like a freaking bot.
This is implicit in the majority of the posts you have ever made defending the Inca vill rush. You do not care about how the opponent enjoys playing against it, only how much you enjoy playing it.Now I'll sit back and wait for X Y Z to explain how their personal enjoyment matters more than their opponents.
As they should. Unless they are playing the game professionally the point of playing it is to have fun.This is the main problem, most players (even in ranked) play mainly because they want to have fun. That's why they often look down on lamers, vilrushers etc, sometimes even civ-pickers or wallers
1111111111111111111111111111What the heck, dude, this post is not an answer to my post at all. You are just repeating yourself and now you're not even TRYING anymore to take into account what the other person said. You make yourself look like you're having some sort of mental disorder. I feel like you're quite an intelligent guy, please stop communicating like a freaking bot.
mh, don't think so. were you around when steppe lancers appeared for the first time? it doesn't take toooo much to make something actually unbeatable and it is definitely a very realistic risk that there could be a strat which is at least unbeatable-when-executed-close-to-optimal (which is kind of the definition of a meta-strategy even).Well, excluding cheats of course. There is no doubt that there are some strats which are very strong, but unbeatable is an absurd choice of word.
What the heck, dude, this post is not an answer to my post at all. You are just repeating yourself and now you're not even TRYING anymore to take into account what the other person said. You make yourself look like you're having some sort of mental disorder. I feel like you're quite an intelligent guy, please stop communicating like a freaking bot.
This is implicit in the majority of the posts you have ever made defending the Inca vill rush. You do not care about how the opponent enjoys playing against it, only how much you enjoy playing it.
As they should. Unless they are playing the game professionally the point of playing it is to have fun.