lust, there's nothing left to argue. This isn't an argument at all, not really. You never yield your position in any discussion, regardless of opposing arguments.
It's incredibly arrogant of
you to dismiss the experience of American teams that support the effectiveness of high concentrations of archers. Hell, it's BkS' trademark on random plains. You say it doesn't matter because
European teams don't play on plains. Does that make our argument any less valid? No, that just makes you a moron for attempting to refute our argument with something entirely irrelevant.
captain lust said:
Do you have any concept of basic logical pathways or how to justify things with reason? If so, demonstrate it.
Indeed.
Also, I found your little comment about archers standing in lines to be rather funny. You truly are acting like a moron at this point. I never once said "line," I said spread. If you're too thick to comprehend "spread," you're too far-gone for me to care. I'm feeling particularly generous, though, so I'll try to explain in simple words. On the map Ruins there are three clusters of ruined buildings inside the walled area. Putting archers in two or three of these clusters creates a spread. You can't flat-out rush them because archers will provide cover for each other and you won't reach them all at the same time. Rushing one group leaves you open to another, but rushing both groups at the same time leaves each rushing group vulnerable to crossfire. Surely you can see that.
As for the class limits comment, I was talking about the 5-a-side. Why would there be a class limitation if archers scaled like everything else? Because archers have more presence on a battlefield and exert more map control, making them the dominant class.
crazyboy11 said:
Mr.X said:
I also don't think that simply because the people in the ENL haven't archer spammed doesn't mean it doesn't work. Thats like being in the 1800s and saying you can't fly to the moon because the governments would've done it if you could. It was just not in their time.
Terrible analogy. In the 1800's it was impossible to fly to the moon. The technology just didnt exist.
Archer spam however is actually possible, and I don't think anyone is saying you can't archer spam, just that's it's pretty lousy.
His analogy is actually fine. He's saying people in the 1800s wouldn't say they could fly to the moon
because their government hadn't already done it. Which is another way of saying they wouldn't argue against the status quo, or what was generally accepted to be true. There's a lack of contradicting evidence to their current views, so they assume their experience is entirely true. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's nonexistent or impossible.
To make it simpler, what he's trying to say is that you can't claim archer spam is ineffective universally because the current standards you play by say it is. You have to be objective in your reasoning and assert a logical conclusion as to why it would be ineffective under all circumstances - considering that this seems to be your current position - because a contrary viewpoint has been presented with support which claims archer spam is effective under circumstances governed by differing standards.
