I HAVEN'T missed your point; you've missed mine. Nor have I "rattled off" a bunch of hypothetical situations- on the contrary, the entire concept I'm talking about centers around being able to adapt to the game's dynamic.
You, on the other hand, are defending the validity of championing more "tangible" ideas like BO which are very much hypothetical situations based on a very specific set of circumstances that vary from game to game. Further, you're attacking me for discussing something you deem to be hypothetical, then go on to state that "discussing theory" is better ?
Finally, far from expressing my "ideal vision" of what tactics to execute in certain situations, what I'm describing should be applicable to most situations in most games.
Based on your posts replying to mine, I'm not even sure if you're serious anymore or if I'm being trolled.
You didn't name a single: map, faction or position. The best you did was allude to a vague game state, I assume in a 2v2, where your teammates "sit there the entire game", I'm sure even by your standards, unless they are literally AFK, a gross generalization, what about that isn't hypothetical?
To adapt is only to change your behaviour to a new set of conditions. To win is to make
accurate adaptations.
You suggest to players: "if you win an engagement, move." again, without posting an actual position or replay, what's for me to take what you say in absolutely poor faith? Perhaps your partner is "sitting there the entire game wondering why they're losing". when they have a Bofors, Mortar Pit and 17pdr on the opponents fuel and cutoff, or an otherwise advantageous position, while you're busy winning an engagement against a fire pit and then moving up into a Schwerer? and then you're telling them to move
Herein lies my problem: real adaptation means analyzing and making correct tactical choices, not oversimplfying: blindly moving, "aggressively" "dynamically" "adapatingly" or otherwise using a buzzword; what your post, if not just taken on it's face as rant, could be deemed as advocating.
Therefore:
I'm championing the discussion of theory, not in an ideas sense, or as random hypotheses but the actual established knowledge (what theory actually is) over generalized -beginner tips- as a better way to engage in thinking about the game and improving, because from my own experience in coaching and playing, what one person believes "should be applicable to most situations in most games." is untrue just by the nature of the game. There are very very very few things that players should do as a default without thinking, including build orders. TO BE CLEAR. Discussion on theory are not great either, but they are far more constructive than whatever this is...
It takes posting replays, analysis and being vulnerable and open to criticism to improve, and if players are not going to do that-- which is rare, and I don't blame them-- It's hard. Then the next best thing are theoretical discussions, knowing that a Rifle's M1 does 1.675 dmg vs. Volks' K98 1.506 without cover modifiers at maximum range is useful, important knowledge which players can draw on in game instead of getting confused or distracted by thinking about vague things like "the forums said I should adapt, move and be dynamic".
Canada
United Kingdom
I thought it was super super weird!!!
赤色彗星
turbotortoise :)
°Markov.-
turbotortoise :)
IULIUS
Relic Entertainment
