I didn't intend to level a L2P argument against CNTK ~ I consider Phalanx and CNTK to thrive for to entirely diffrent 'playstyles' (casual vs tryhard), you'll have to admit that there is not a single guild matching the strict organization/coordination of Phalanx.
Not matching that level of organization/coordination is strictly not a L2P issue, I am sure CNTK is on a mechanical level and unterstanding of gameflow etc on par with Phalanx, so are other organized ORvR guilds.
Furthermore, I don't see how I could potentially take your post as 'being salty' or a 'call out', you make valid points in a discussion - that's about it, tho I apologize should my tongue-in-cheek approach have come off as too harsh.
==Karast wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:41 pmI am not trying to be salty or call you out on this Darosh, but those videos don't give a complete picture, and this is nothing on zerg. When you make a fights video, you show the good stuff. But get a few people and make a WB and then run BH and you will see it is no where near as functional as you might think it is, especially fighting an organized enemy WB like TUP.
Zerg never had an easy time with it, they ate a lot of wipes, and it never fully worked out for them. I was there, CNTK were the ones they used to front line while they tried to pump their way up to 4. It rarely worked unless you were 2v1 another WB since the fight was over before then otherwise. Or the destro zerg is simply big enough that you just get mowed down. That's the reality of the situation.
My point wasn't about functionality in terms of deadset reliability, rather about the math behind it:Darosh wrote: ↑Sun Jul 29, 2018 6:17 pm[...] it did require setup (had them kite and consistently move/use cannonfodder/AM pumps) but there is virtually no counter to 5-8 M4 (BH) ranged, instant PBAoE that totals anywhere between 8k and roughly 12,8k undefendable damage ~ disregarding the ST component ~ followed up by FB+FFB rotations (rather FB[FF]->BH->FBB). [...]
IF setup properly (regardless the cost, as covered in my initial response quoted above), you cannot, as Ramasee followed upon, survive a morale bomb like the one outlined above. It is strictly impossible ~ you cannot apply counters or stack even remotely enough wounds (across all classes, even - most importantly - on tanks) to live through it.
With Ramasee's input in mind, it's safe to say that the reliability of this particular approach wouldn't be as much of a risk to take if you manage to min-max your warbands to the nth degree - which Phalanx couldn't due to lack of slaves (11/10, building that guild moral with toptier bantz). Mind you, it does not lock you out of ordinary means of bombing after all.
This is undoubtly necessary for each and every format available in the game, +1.Karast wrote: ↑Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:41 pmI'd really advise that dev's who are not knowledgeable about the current WB meta actually get stuck in a try to join a few sessions, just to see the tactics at play and what currently works or not, as well as the reason behind why people use, or don't use certain things. Right now these discussions often lack key view points and the same "You no you" and "X is better than Y", and "L2P" arguments comments just flood the threads.
In regards to 'why some things aren't used' ~ there are two sides to each medallion, in this very case:
Opting for reliability - opting to dare; Phalanx' approach didn't lock them out of either, ultimately.
I for one am more keen to go by 'who dares wins', you can't go wrong experimenting and dedicating yourself to whatever you experiment with... worst case you learn about the limits of the game and/or your resources, best case you find fancy new stuff and keep yourself entertained regardless (of failure); if you do not try to break the 'established' meta there is nothing to gain but Einheitstrott after all.
Careful there... even tho' you only refer to telegraphing AoE, considering GW2 - even if just for example's sake - as a source of inspiration:
GW2 had discount i-frames, terrible in hindsight-ducttaped targetcaps, exploitable downstates, a money grubbing developer/publisher running the show and abandoning WvWvW once the honeypot scheme generated enough profits, aswell as a terrible swissknife approach to class design - every bit of that game constitues the antithesis to WAR, so do almost all gameflow related products of this trainwreck.
Take the GW2's implementation of telegraphing as means to eliminate - or atleast severely limiting - player interaction; to create a hotjoin-esque scenario. Vibrant, all-encompassing telegraphs dumb down communication; aniticipation, missjudgement, failure, practice, reliance ~ and success (in spite of these aspects and requirements, aswell as a derivative of plain social interaction) ~ are essential for the development of a healthy community (I am almost certain that communities formed in GW2 [and other modern games for that matter] are internally fragile, especially in comparison to communities formed within 'old media').
The directly above applies to all major aspects of GW2 fundamental design, you are meant to consume, not to bond - bonding might cut player retention by large margin, should key figures (those that you'd follow and listen to; who fail with you rather than 'react' with - yet independantly of you - to an event).
In short, vagueness of game design is often a blessing in disguise - the most, seemingly trivial and outstandingly subtle mechanism and designs can, and will, have the biggest impact on behaviour ~
E: Keep any typos and whatnot that you find, your welcome. Cue peon meme, bloody tablet, yadayada.