All others just write something, without even trying to discuss, explain their vision of situiatuion. Why and how should I listen to them? What should I answer to "Maxim is fine, OP is troll". Is it reasonable way of discussion?
I listened only one person here, who reasonably explained me his vision of "why Maxim is not so trashy as you think". Well, Im not agree with him and write my answers to his arguments. He wrote me back, I wrote my back... That's how normal discussion goes.
No, even people who disagree with you are part of a conversation. You cannot just accept the views that relate to yours without taking into consideration other people's point of view - especially in discussions forums.
Sovs got countless more patterns? Maybe, but problem is not about "how much patterns USSR has". Problem is - USSR can't into effective defensive playstyle, only in offense, while all other factions can combine or, at least, choose between 2 of those. Isn't that showing you weakness of USSR?
You brought the idea of Soviets being a one role-faction, so yes, if you say that USSR has no patterns of play, you cannot just suddenly switch the topic again if I disagree with you.
Soviets are not defensive, I heartily agree; every faction has clear strengths, and clear disadvantages, even if the most recent 222 changes may have blurred that away slightly. Soviets have no need for defense though, it is not their design intention; The game even promotes them being aggressive over defensive.
If you want a defensive Ally faction, go play Brits. Or go play OST, which has to think one step ahead of Americans (who are even more easy to predict, due to their LT/CPT/MJ on the field, clearly visible to opponents)
MissCommissar: ESL games shows nothing but skills of players, who spends most of their time in making their skill in 1 game better and better. I don't care about "how pro's playing". Pro's are not majority in CoH 2 and never should be.
*facepalm*