So angry...
crazyboy11 said:
You're so full of **** Orion
crazyboy11 said:
So please for the love of god, and good health of all this thread's readers, don't waste any more of our time trying to argue something that:
a) Doesn't need to be argued
b) Uses an irrelevant data set
c) Insults anyone posting in this thread (as you have done frequently).
Follow your own advice and if you consider North America invalid, then any North American speaking with will likely have little success.
Mr.X said:
At 10v10 it isn't an issue because the 10 people playing don't all enjoy playing archer. If 10 people were go to archer on pretty much any map, as long as they weren't ridiculously stupid and 3 or 4 of them were actually good archers, the archers would win.
Yes, this is what the argument is about. Not to take anything from Orion's impending response, but this is exactly what he details.
See below
Orion said:
I've also said before that archer spam scales better than all other forms of class spam
Your claim of fallacy with his argument is as follows.
crazyboy11 said:
Your last few posts have been talking about "varying numbers" of archers, and how different numbers of archers are useful in differen situations. This only helps prove the point that 10 archers is ineffective.
This is a conclusion which I cannot determine how you reached aside from being similar to my personal opinion. Yes, varying amounts of archers are useful. Hopefully, we agree on that. Now spamming archers, for example we take 75% to 100% of the team. Falls into varying numbers and is addressed by Orion in a previous quote in this post. The claim is that it scales better than other forms of spam. That is the end of the statement on the issue. According to this claim 10 archers would be better then 10 cav on a given map. I disagree with this point and I believe you, crazy, do as well. As this is a discussion without any verifiable evidence, just different experiences, there is no way to prove how ineffectual any system is.
crazyboy11 said:
Orion said:
Maybe in Europe a clan leader will say "ok guys, I want 3 archers, 5 infantry, and 2 cavalry" and will stick with it on any map, ranging from random plains (oh wait, you guys don't play that I hear) Field by the River to nord town to port assault. I doubt that's the case, but it's the impression I'm getting from you specifically, crazy.
This isn't the case and I've said nothing that would give you that impression. You're just making stuff up.
After reviewing the thread, I do not see how Orion acheived this impression either, but it is an impression. Which are patterns induced by perceptions. Your tone appears insulting in this instance and as you likely don't know Orion personally on a level where you can consider every possible perception he could have on your words and you can not know if a word was missed or transposed during reading or other such issue, your absolute declaration seems improbable.
My last sentence is not very clear. For clarification, impressions are personal things and most can't know how there words impact another.
crazyboy11 said:
That's not the argument now is it. The argument is that 10 good archers will beat *anything* on pretty much every map, when it's been clearly shown that most maps at 10vs10 on Medium reward a fairly well mixed class distribution.
Firstly, define clearly shown? I am not important in the Warband scene, but I have seen teams with approximately 50-75% archers destroy other teams of mixed composition. I have never seen a team of 100% archers play so I cannot argue there. I don't believe it would be very effect personally as archers work better if there is a buffer between them and the enemy. Effectively, for archers having melee support seems required in my opinion.
Secondly, the argument is whether or not it is feasible to move to 10 people instead of 8. Disputed by a few arguments one of which is that as the number of archers increases other classes lose effectiveness and reduce the relative skill level of the match.
crazyboy11 said:
I'm really struggling to keep up with your line of argument here, you seem to just be posting anything vaugley relevant that just happens to be true
As you dispute several times on the validity of his information and data set, it surprises me you consider all his arguments true.
Orion said:
Mr.X said:
I think you can safely assume that maximum roster size would be increased. The reason the topic came to archer spam was because several people feel that larger numbers decreases the skill level of the match.
+1
Do I need to elaborate on sample size? It's still entirely relevant.
And now, for a bit of posturing and saber rattling (I like sabers):
Killfacer said:
What you're saying is that it's been rejected by the current european meta. It's simply not the case, it has been tried repeatedly for years and on the whole has failed to beat competent teams. The sample size is pretty big, at least bigger than anything you'll be able to put forward.
Congratulations, you have graduated to moron status. A handful of teams "attempting" archer spam and failing in the past is not a complete data set. A handful of teams in the US attempting and succeeding at archer spam are part of the same data set (and would complete the data set), but many here are refusing to include them in their reasoning. They divide the available sample into "European" and "American" and ignore the validity of the American data, just as you have done with your quote.
So mean...
I believe that he is not trying to dismiss the North American data as to say that while there may be 10-15% of the clans whom excel at archer spam it would be greatly reduced by pairing our data set with the European data set and recalculating the percentages. Before the counterattack, I do not have actual figures and lack the experience for an educated guess. The number used earlier this paragraph may very well not be even close to the actual percentages.
Now for peace and happiness everyone.