Myth Strategy

A single berserk reached us yesterday, after having come all the way over the mountains from the city of Willow, fourteen hundred miles away. He delivered to Alric a single package the size of a man's fist, wrapped in rags, and refuses to talk with anyone about events in the West.
SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

I brought comment over from the Godhead section from Grims "You werent better 10 yrs ago thread" as some people suggested people were going off topic.

I like reading these discussion on Myth Strategy it is very interesting. GKG do you (or anyone else) feel that your opinion on there being basically one optimum strategy applies to all maps (I guess more on a 1v1 situation) or just big 2 tm maps? I am asking because I read your article GKG (it has been awhile) and I agree with a lot or most of what you say and you make a lot of good points but on Gimble CTF I dont see that there is one optimum strategy or unit selection. Gimble CTF when played traditionally where people fight the standard fights is basically 3 1v1's for the first half. So it may be that you could scale down the big 2 tm maps to smaller 1v1s. Your concept should work on any scale. Now I'm not saying your wrong cause I'm not set on what I think about the subject for sure. I just want to point out at least one map Gimble CTF I dont think that there is one optimum unit selection or strategy. When myself and a bunch of other people were playing Gimble CTF A LOT just about everyone had a unique Unit Set and strategy. There are so many different ways to play that map speaking of the initial 1v1's specifically (a scaled down version of large 2 tm maps). Some people would go with a lot of artillery and light on melee others would get no artillery and all melee and plenty of mixes in between. None of them was much better than any other.
THESE EXAMPLES ARE ALL BASED ON PLAYERS OF EQUAL SKILL.
There are 3 main types of armies that Players get.
Max Artillery Minimum Melee = Player A: 6 Bows 2 Dwarfs and 6 Stygs 2 Thrall 2 Ghols and a Jman. Preferred Range: Long -The best army at this range
Max Melee little or no Artillery (Melee Rush type army) = Player B: 8 Stygs 8 Warrs 6 Ghols 2 Thrall Jman. Preferred Range: Close - The best army at this range
Balanced mix type army, less than Max Artillery, less than Max Melee = Player C: 5 Bows 2 Dwarfs 6 Warrs 3 Stygs 2 Ghols 2 Thrall Jman. Preferred Range: Varies - Good at both. Best at neither

If Player A had max artillery and minimum melee, VS Player B the all Melee Rush would be a good counter to that ( but it does hinge a lot on taking out the Dwarfs) If the player with max artillery has a hill they can set up on, it makes it all the harder for the Melee Rush to win. But most of the time the Full Melee Rush is going to beat a Max Artillery low Melee Army. Being that they have a large enough Melee advantage they can lose 4-8 Melee or more to Dwarfs and Arcs during the charge and still win. If Player B lost 6 Melee in the charge and took out the Dwarfs and since Player A doesnt have a lot of Melee to defend his Dwarfs his Dwarfs could get even less kills. Not counting Ghols (say being lost to other Ghols or Bows going after Dwarfs which happens a lot)it is still 10 Melee vs 6. Even if Player A still has Bowmen Player B will usually win that. Player B has Max effectiveness in a close quarters fight. Player B has enough of a Melee advantage that he can lose quite a few Melee in his charge plus neutralizing the Dwarfs and still win. Player A wants a more ranged battle to take advantage of his Artillery, yet he doesnt have enough Melee to slow the charge from Player B to allow his Artillery (mostly Dwarfs) to neutralize Player B's Melee advantage. So Player B will dictate the battle range and force it close range where he is most effective. Advantage goes to Max Melee over Max Artillery.

Then a Max Artillery army would have advantage vs a mixed army that didnt max artillery. Team A Max Artillery having 6 Bows 2 Dwarfs 6 Stygs 2 Thrall 2 Ghols and a Jman vs Team C a more balanced army with 5 Bows 2 Dwarf 6 Warrs 3 Stygs 2 Ghols 2 Thrall and a Jman. Although team C has more Melee and a more Rushier type army, they dont have enough of a melee advantage to just charge the other army. Being that Player A has 2 Dwarfs and B does not enough of a Melee advantage to absorb losing 4-8 to Dwarfs and Arcs during the charge. Before Player C can use his Melee advantage he needs to take out Player A's Dwarfs. Ghols cancel Ghols. So these battles usually become Bowmen Duels for awhile. If Players are equal then the advantage most of the time is going to go to Player A who has more Bows. Player A has max effectiveness and is looking for a ranged battle. Player C does not have max effectiveness in a ranged battle vs Player A but is more effective close range vs Player A. Since Player C doesnt have a large enough Melee advantage to charge and force a close range battle Player A will dictate the range to where he is more effective. Advantage Max Artillery over No max Balanced Army.

Then there is Player B vs Player C. Player B with Max Mellee isnt going to be able to Rush Player C like he could with Player A. Since Player C has more Melee if Player B loses 4-8 Melee in his charge he wont be at the same advantage as he was against Player A. If Player B lost 6 Melee to Dwarfs before he took them out it is going to be 10 vs 9 being that close Player C's Bowmen IS going to give an advantage to Player C. If Player B lost more than 6 Melee the advantage is even greater for C. Since C has more Melee to defend his Dwarfs with it is likely his 2 Dwarfs can get more than 6 kills between them which is what usually happens. In this situation Player B has to get a close quarters fight with Player C, yet Player C has enough Melee that Player B cant afford to lose many units in an all out charge. So Player B cant dictate the range and force it close quarters. Player C is more effective vs Player B at a long range battle. Since Player C does have enough Melee to slow or damage a charge from Player B enough for Player B to lose his Melee advantage. Player C can dictate the range to a long range battle. Advantage to Balanced no max army vs Max Melee.

You end up with B>A - A>C - C>B This is a Rocks, Paper, Scissor situation.
If it is true on Gimble CTF specifically the 1v1's wouldnt it also apply to some Big 2 team maps since a 2 team maps is still 1v1 1 team vs 1 team.
I know this doesnt apply to all maps. Like PG or KG for example with those maps there are pretty much only one good units set. Personally I would like to see all maps have the type of balance that Gimble CTF has. Where there is a huge variety of unit sets that Players can get and they all have equal merit. I think though in a lot cases GKG is probably right about one optimum unit set but not always, and I think ideally all maps would have units that allowed for more variety and no one optimal unit selection as in the case of Gimble CTF. Opinions?

SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

This reminded me of something else I had thought of. I was thinking it would be cool if we started naming strategies and tactics and listing them somewhere. I know this is already done somewhat as in everyone knows what a Rush is. I was thinking more specific like. For example if someone has a good strat, unit set ect for Desert. Make a film or write out the strat for it and name it. We could post these strats somewhere and over time we could develop a Myth Play Book with at least a lot of popular maps in it. This would be cool and helpful in a lot of ways. If we had a few strats/unit sets for a lot of the popular maps when tourneys came around captains could use and or build of these strats. For example if there were 3 named strats for Creep Terries "Grims Grimy Grind" "GKGs Pushy Creep" "Milkmans Borderland Brawl" Best I could think of right now :) Anyway for the people that took time to study the plays we would all know them. So if a Tourney Capt is working on a strat he could use for example a modified version of "GKGs Pushy Creep" everyone already knows the basic strat and just needs to know the changes the Capt made. This would also be good for random team games. The Capt could just call out the strat. Over time this would end up being like a football playbook. Players could submit strats, as a film with a written description or a shoutcast or just written out then people could discuss them rate them ect. I think that as people did this and the strats were discussed there would be an over all community improvement in strats and game quality. Also and I know a lot of these things are known by most people but naming and listing different tactics would also be cool. Name tactics like a tactic to defend vs a Rush. Or a tactic on Rushing vs a Fetch. Describe how you do it in general and then name it. So it could be use sort of like this. Your fighting someone you've lost your Fetch they still have theirs but less melee than you so you go into a "Coiled Viper" (trying to think of a name) tactic meaning you backed off regrouped your units back into a wide formation and you execute the "strike" which would be using the proper way to rush a Fetch. This would be very cool especially if some of the Pros would do this. For the creator you get the posterity of other people using your named tactic and for the community as a whole the level of skill goes up.

Opinions?

NewMutator
Posts: 494
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by NewMutator »

Interesting idea, Sam. If I knew of cool or interesting names for specific "moves" I would probably use them in a cast. One problem might be that it may be difficult to force consensus on some generic strats; also I don't know if there's enough people to make it anything but a kind of arbitrary naming scheme (unless the names are really evocative or useful). But, yeah, I can see how that could improve casting by creating a shorthand, freeing up redundant speech.

cremisi
Posts: 86
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 18:44
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by cremisi »

you guys need to check out the mother of all myth strategy guide lol . and mb new mutator an use some of the references used here and just lol at how insanely people went into this back in the day . http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x47jzw_caterpillar-phalanx_fun#rel-page-under-1

SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

I'm differentiating between Strategies and Tactics. Strategy being the overall map plan and unit set. Tactics being in game moves such as Puss Bomb tactic or a tactic for Rushing a Fetch and Melee with just Melee.

I was thinking that GKG could if he wanted contribute a lot to the map strategies probably right away. Since he is good with map strategy and has posted articles on it already and has a solid track record. Plenty of other people too but GKG comes to my mind. As far as naming strategies I guess priority could go to the first person to post and name them. With map Strategies there would be a lot of different ones a few for each map. So I think that there would be less of an issue with who names it. Except for maps like Trow most good strategies are already well known so naming those may be an issue but that same issue would be less with 3rd party maps. Basically anyone could pick a map/game type (3rd party maps) come up with a strategy post it and name it. Anyone else could give analysis of that strategy come up with counter strategies or most people could agree that is the best strategy. If there were 4-5 strategies to a given map people could discuss which works best vs which other or which works best with a rabble team, which requires better team cohesion, which is more reliable for average players, which requires a higher level of player skill ect.

Naming tactics would be a little more difficult since a lot of tactics a lot of people use and it would be hard to give credit to the inventor. Such as Puss Bombs and Heal Trow Trapping but those already have names anyway and could be listed on the site or wherever the Myth Playbook was at. People could though post their method or tactics that they use for a given situation. As in how they would Rush a Fetch with just Melee or how to defend vs a a Melee Rush when you have Bows and Dwarf but a lot less Melee. Then name it like "The Coiled Viper Strikes" or "The Cornered Badger Defense" If someone were to learn these different Tactics it would probably help them in different in game situations. For example you have a small mixed squad 4 Bows, 1 Dwarf, 5 Warrs on Desert your on the Northern Flank and your being charged by 10 Warrs and 2 Ghols. You would know to go into "The Cornered Badger Defense" Although a lot people already know pretty well how to defend their self in this situation not all know the best way to. To be able to see the Warrs attacking and to immediately think about at know the optimum counter is to go into "The Cornered Badger Defense". Would be a big help.

I think building a Myth Playbook with Strategies and Tactics would be a great resource for the community and would definitely increase the overall community skill level and be great for noobs. Plus it would just further the evolution and community content of Myth.

switch
Posts: 675
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 19:56
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by switch »

Two points:
First, I'd love to see the analysis of the first post represented as a quadrant matrix. I think there is some very useful and detailed analysis there that gets muddled by the textual representation.

Two, I think the problem with naming moves is that move names in myth have traditionally arisen organically over time with a very few exceptions (Frumius Wight blast, for example: others have organic origins but will become more associated with individual players- ie, Adrenaline's use of Carpet Bombing in recent MWC). Another problem with providing the explicit subjective interpretations of myth moves is that doing so reveals the actual thought process of the players involved which could be more detail than most mythers would desire to divulge. GKG, for example, has been extremely candid by revealing his conception of "push factor" and "myth economics" amongst other ideas. Adrenaline, likewise, has recently revealed his preferences for preset organization and other specifics that likewise have given particular advantages over the years. Disclosing all of this information from the entire community would radically alter our perception of the game's mechanics.

For example, Sam, your posts suggests you perceive the game as essentially a pattern matching system: each arrangement is matched or countered by another arrangement which suggests that unit trading and movement are essential compared to oblique rushes or micromanagement. As Cremisi's post concerning the infamous caterpillar phalanx reminds us, divulging a unique "strat" often describes more about the player's perception of how the game is played (ie; divulging myth strats is always disadvantageous because information vital to a player's perception of the game is divulged to potential adversaries for free). Although, Tirri did recently publish the "stall don't fall" strat to bait his antagonists, suggesting that myth strats remain integral to metagame.

SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

Switch you didnt think I explain the first post it very well? Maybe not but you did get what I was saying. Yea some moves have evolved organically which as I mentioned moves like that would be listed and credit given to the community unless a specific person can be attributed to it. "Frumius Wight Blast" and others. Yes some people wouldnt be willing to divulge some of their tactics at the risk of losing an edge, but even with that being the case others could view films and do analysis and discuss the moves a player did. So if a player didnt want to give out his moves they could still be brought out by others thus the originator would get less credit vs personally giving a description. There are also more than individual moves though. I did a tutorial a few years ago on how to counter a Rush on Gimble. It is more than one individual move. It is a series of moves and position making up a defense or counter strat to a Rush more like a Play. This strat/play can work on other maps (specifically light) as well. As a whole for a team or an individual player on a team facing a Rush type attack. Like the example I gave with one Player having small mixed squad 4 Bows, 1 Dwarf, 5 Warrs on Desert vs being charged by 10 Warrs and 2 Ghols. I havent named this Strat or anything but when I am in that situation it is a default position I take and I am pretty successful with it. There are plenty of other types of situations and plays like this that people use. I think a lot of times just naturally from experience without thinking about it. What happens when you start naming Plays like this they go from just being instinctual to actually being a planned Attack or Defense. In some ways like the sword fighting scene in "Princess Bride" obviously that is exaggerated but I think people get the idea. I was a wrestler in High school we learned a lot of moves and then counters to those moves. So during the match it became somewhat of a chess match. You would know what your opponent is trying to set you up for and would therefore know the counter.

As far as how I perceive the game you are basically right. I would add though that micromanagement ect also plays a big part. Some Mythers just have a lot of raw speed and quick reflexes that help them win. In some cases another Player could attack them with a pretty elaborate attack with multiple flanks ect and the other Player is able to defend against it not because of superior strategy but just fast reflexes. Like in wrestling knowing and being able to execute moves is important but having strength,endurance and speed are also important. Actually in wrestling you first focus on strength, endurance and speed and learn just basic moves. Say level 1 Then you move on to start learning more elaborate moves that actually involve set ups and you learn counters. Level 2 These moves all have names. So when you are wrestling and your opponent tries to execute a move you know that move by name and you know exactly how to counter it. Even with that though without strength speed and endurance you may not counter. Nearly all competitive sports have named moves, strategies or plays. It is sort of like the evolution of a sport. It starts with raw talent. People start learning and figuring out moves. Then they start naming the moves and developing counters and set ups. I think that with the help from the community we could start getting Myth to this level. Which I think would push people to continue to improve as the whole base level of Myth skill improves. Plus with people publishing Strategies, Tactics, Moves and Plays and then people analyzing and discussing those they could all be improved on and combinations created. We would just need some people willing to start analyzing Myth a little more scientifically. Like watch films analyze and record the Strats and Tactics they see then share and discuss those with other people. Even a small group of people doing this would definitely increase the skill of at least that group and anyone else that choose to learn from it.

But to have someone like GKG, Adrenaline or Tirri to contribute would be a huge boost to the whole thing of creating a Myth Playbook of Strategies and Tactics site.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

well Sam an archless trade is going to be best for gimble ctf. However for an ffa, you might want archers because as soon as you expend your pus on the first fight, you have no other good way to kill an enemy dorf when you go to fight the next team. So that is a gamble, more archers increases your chances of losing the first fight, but also increases your chances of winning the rest. Vice versa for the archless trade. Also you can usually have a better shot at more dominating wins conserving more of your % from winning artillery based fights as opposed to melee ones.

I don't really like thinking in terms of FFA though, it is a crapshoot and full of politics that dilutes the emphasis on actual skilled fighting.

I think better than some myth playbook is for captains to just keep their own personal notes on strategies. Mine are scattered amongst various word docs from my past couple MWC wins. I could have done a lot better of a job making notes of these things over the years as well, in which case I would have a lot more. Then you would just share your playbook if you wanted, which would ultimately divulge everything about your strategies and your line of thought. Something I have pretty much already done with my "push factor" article, but apparently that had little effect as my team still won MWC quite convincingly yet again.

Renwood
Posts: 493
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 10:16
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Renwood »

GKG are you saying you are not good at FFA? Or just that you never play it?
Or would you say skill matters less in FFA since its so random?

I would say skill matters more in FFA, since you might have to kill 2 or 3 armies with the same amounts of units you have and still win the objective vs multiple opponents.

Though with all the hateplayers and total noobs that just rush the first army they see no matter what the gametype, FFA games can be really fucked up these days....I miss the bungie.net era ~8^(

SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

Renwood wrote:GKG are you saying you are not good at FFA? Or just that you never play it?
Or would you say skill matters less in FFA since its so random?

I would say skill matters more in FFA, since you might have to kill 2 or 3 armies with the same amounts of units you have and still win the objective vs multiple opponents.

Though with all the hateplayers and total noobs that just rush the first army they see no matter what the gametype, FFA games can be really fucked up these days....I miss the bungie.net era ~8^(

Because of the randomness of most FFA I used Gimble CTF played the common way. Since when played that way with no haters it is the only FFA map that plays like a mini tourney of 3 1v1's. It is the 1v1 aspect that I was using and also the many different unit sets and strategies used effectively by so many people. As opposed to map like PG where there is really one optimum unit trade and it is used with some variation by just about everyone. In other words Gimble CTF plays like a small 2 team map like Creep. Creep also having a variety of strategies and unit sets used by a lot of players. GKGs theory as I understand is that for all maps there is basically one optimum unit set/strategy and it is a Rush type Push Strategy with heavy melee. Which I agree with for sure on some/a lot of maps and he could be right about them all. I was pointing out from my experience with Gimble CTF for that map at least I dont think that there is one optimum unit set/strategy specifically the 1v1 aspect. That there are a lot of valid unit sets/strats and that some work better vs others. If it would be true on Gimble couldnt it also hold true on big 2 team maps? I think Creep is just a large scale Gimble CTF 1v1 basically. The same Unit Set/Strategy styles that applied to Gimble CTF 1v1 should apply to Creep. Like I said I could be wrong but it make sense to me.

NewMutator
Posts: 494
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by NewMutator »

Certainly optimal unit sets are more applicable to dark meshes, where the fastest units are also the toughest and strongest. I think PunkUser touched on this briefly. Therefore a unit set needs to maximize the most costly units such as trow to be viable. The effect of using up a good chunk of unit points in this way is to limit the ways the remaining trading points can be used; this makes all viable unit sets variations of a single "optimum" trade.

I do think there is less of this happening in most light meshes (excluding those where overpowered hero units and giants are prominently featured).

SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

NewMutator wrote:Certainly optimal unit sets are more applicable to dark meshes, where the fastest units are also the toughest and strongest. I think PunkUser touched on this briefly. Therefore a unit set needs to maximize the most costly units such as trow to be viable. The effect of using up a good chunk of unit points in this way is to limit the ways the remaining trading points can be used; this makes all viable unit sets variations of a single "optimum" trade.

I do think there is less of this happening in most light meshes (excluding those where overpowered hero units and giants are prominently featured).

I think I agree with you New. I think it has a lot to do with the concentration of power. On maps where you can have a lot of concentrated power in to a fewe units like on Trow you for sure want to use a more Rush Pushy type strat. So you can focus all that power into a smaller area on your enemy in a hopefully less concentrated softer spot and do it quickly. There isnt much else to do to counter with this type of units since you have to meet that concentration of power with a like amount. VS a map where the unit power is less concentrated and there arent any power units. All the units are much more equal in power so you have more options on units. Even with different unit sets/types there is still a somewhat equal amount of power concentration.

punkUser
Posts: 1413
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by punkUser »

SamTheButcher wrote:If it would be true on Gimble couldnt it also hold true on big 2 team maps? I think Creep is just a large scale Gimble CTF 1v1 basically. The same Unit Set/Strategy styles that applied to Gimble CTF 1v1 should apply to Creep. Like I said I could be wrong but it make sense to me.
I don't think that's true for the reasons that GKG mentioned, i.e. in FFA you have to deal with the fact that you might have to fight a *second* army (or more) after you win the first fight. Thus "one-off" strategies (pus) or ones that take heavy attrition (i.e. a big melee fight) can guarantee that you lose the subsequent fight, even if they are a sure-fire way to win the first one. Thus just the initial 1v1 portion of Gimble (or better yet, 2 team max) might be applicable to 2-team play, but not trades that are optimizing for the entire FFA game.

In 2-team tournament games it typically doesn't matter if you win with one unit left or 100%, so the Gimble CTF factors that might push you towards slightly more arty-heavy trades (i.e. because you need to win not just the battle, but the war) do not apply.

But I agree it's tougher/less interesting to analyze FFA because of the external factors. You guys may call them "hate-play" or whatever you want to discourage playing in a way different than what you want to, but the fact is they are as legit a part of the game as anything else (I fully realize the most often you're using the term for more suicidal behavior that is not meant to win the game, but it's a grey area). If double-teaming someone (say, a significantly better player) is going to raise the chance of me winning the game, I'm definitely going to do it. Not doing it would be playing sub-optimally, and playing some weird meta-game that isn't Myth FFA. So while that might be an interesting discussion in and of itself, I agree with GKG that there's too many "soft" factors to consider there to draw any really interesting conclusions.

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

Wow so now FFA is uninteresting because GKG doesn't like/isn't good at it? *sigh*

Seems like every day GKG's shaft plunges a little deeper into LN, how long can this go on?

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

BTW what you describe isn't hate playing LN, hate playing is just rushing someone out of a childish tantrum that host didn't do what you want (ex: host 2t), causing both you and the person rushed to lose and generally ruining the game. GKG is enough of a gentleman not to hate play, but many of those who subscribe to his tastes do, claiming that BC is the "only skill in ffa" as justification for their s00k.

Grave LMOTH also has no optimal trade, though each start does have trades that work better depending on your plan of attack.

punkUser
Posts: 1413
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by punkUser »

Milk Man wrote:Wow so now FFA is uninteresting because GKG doesn't like/isn't good at it? *sigh*
Uhh no one said that. What *was* said is that FFA is more complex to analyze because it has far more "soft" factors involved, so it's uninteresting/unrelated to the context of this discussion. No one is saying it's an uninteresting game mode...

Also I'm not LN, assuming you were responding to me...


Ratking
Posts: 379
Joined: 14 Nov 2012, 21:18
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Ratking »

I will divulge my captain secret: cremisi + dantski = win


Also, I will now be known as Sir Ratski the Bold.



This is my strategy for winning mwc13. Obviously adding the 'sir' and the 'ski' changes everything. Also I'm sending big breasted strippers, and in some cases male prostitutes, to my opponents homes before the matches.

Myrk
Posts: 496
Joined: 19 Nov 2012, 03:10
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Myrk »

Gimble ctf does have a single best strategy. It's a strategy shared by all ctf ffa maps.
It's called: camp on your flag all fucking game.
That's how it went in every single ffa tournament when the organizers caved to the idiots who wanted ctf games.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

I would rather fight other players instead of actively trying to avoid them in order to win the game. More often I have the highest damage in FFAs rather than actually winning them. If that makes me bad at FFA then I am bad at FFA. However Milk Man or any other non-4 ballers calling me bad at FFA is still laughable as obviously it would take quite a bit more than just my impatience for FFAs or lack of care in trying to win them, in order to lower me to their level. get real bro.

p.s. ffa most definitely does not take more skill. much less actually. If you can play like a bitch in camping, avoiding fights, etc. then you will succeed in FFA much more than 1v1 or 2 team because your fighting skill will not be tested as much.

Renwood
Posts: 493
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 10:16
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Renwood »

GKG, you are very wrong here.

IF you have a HIGH percentage number of wins in FFA, that is harder then 2 team play.
This is a FACT, because there are soo many factors and randomness and LUCK involved in each FFA game, if you can still win on a consistent basis, then you have overcome much more then a 2 team match would have provided and luck/skill is more of a factor.

It is easy to get most damage in an FFA game if everybody else is going for the objective and you are not, because you are just trying to kill shit. PG Koth for instance, you can wait a min untill everybody gets set up near flag, then just go around rear ending people with locks and morts and because you are ignoring the objective, its easy to mess up people who are trying for the Koth flag.
I know because I used to do this all the time, and it pissed people off a lot. Its a bad habit to get into, because you do not have to TRY to WIN the game. As we all know, Its All About The Game.

People who are not playing the game type in FFA, i.e. people who just suicide/rush (let me clarify, RUSH is if you just run at and DEFEAT the enemy, a SUICIDE/RUSH is when you die horribly or have such little % left you can not WIN) the army next to them or hateplay by chasing somebody around the map all game MILES away from the objective or just BC and go for damnage. That is what people like MM were talking about. Playing to win the game, and going for the objective required to win it, is how FFA games are meant to be played. Punkuser, doubles are no gray area, they are part of myth. Its just as much about NOT putting ones self into a position TO GET DOUBLED, as it is trying to set up a double on an enemy team. Unless its due to a map's shortcomings, like on PG/Killing where the middle team starts can get doubled sandwitched super badly on a mode like BC. But that is due MORE to the unbalanced nature of the map's design itself.

I would also like to point out, that being really good (Like in 2 teams) when all your buddies are on the same team as you are is pretty easy to pull off. Knowing each other's playing style and having teamwork makes everybody else need to bring less overall skill, because they have each other's backs. Which is a good thing overall.

punkUser
Posts: 1413
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by punkUser »

Renwood wrote:Punkuser, doubles are no gray area, they are part of myth.
Sure, agreed. I was saying that there's a grey area *between* pure hateplay (politics) and legitimate play where you're trying to win, and it's impossible to know people's true motivations. Thus it's not really possible to properly analyze in the same way as 2-team games.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

Yes there are quite a lot of other factors involved such as randomness and luck. Notice that none of them is actual fighting skill.

Sure it may be easier to get damage when you are hateplaying and others are not. I didn't really say that though, I usually don't hateplay (although this is very much a part of FFA as well), but I am much more aggressive than anyone else. FFA is very much a passive man's game. The same aggression that makes me good at 1v1 and 2 team makes me worse at FFA. Completely different playstyles. So my point still stands.

The mere fact that there is hateplaying proves my point that there is less skill. If in an FFA tournament I don't care about winning, and instead just want to make someone else lose by hateplaying them, and then we both get last place, does that mean either of us are actually the worst at ffa? The current game mechanics for FFA actually encourages hateplaying which is why it happens so much. As soon as you have no chance, or very little chance of winning or moving your placement at all, you are then going to be motivated to lower the placement of whoever you don't like. The politics does not equate to skill. Hateplaying aside, even if everyone played FFA the "way it was meant to be played", the inherent luck factor also does not equate to skill.

Your last comment regarding 2 team requiring less skill because you are all buddies is completely laughable. Really? Every 2 team game you play is with nothing but friends that you have played extensively with? Ludicrous...

There is teamwork regardless of whether or not they are your friends regardless. The teamwork involved adds an additional element of skill to the game in that regard. Teamwork is very much a skill, some people are good at it and others are not. So that is an entire game element missing from FFA, and a very significant one.

Let's ignore all arguments though about whether or not FFA or 2 team requires more skill. At the very least I don't think it can be really argued that they are in-fact 2 very different skill sets. So that means being good at FFA does not necessarily translate to being good at 2 team and vice versa. Working under that assumption, which skill set is more prestigious? Which one is more highly and widely regarded? Which one has the better tournaments? Just working with those facts, most players would prefer to be good at 2 team and hold more respect for it, which makes it the more relevant skill in the game.

The same reason FFA tournaments are much less popular in Myth is the same reason why there is no such thing as FFA in real life sports. Nobody wants to watch that shit and few want to compete in it. You can't isolate the randomness and luck factors, so it is hardly a true test of skill.

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

The difference is not between one sport and another but between sports and real life. Politics is not "for bitches," unless you find spectators and statisticians more interesting than revolutionaries. I personally prefer Machiavelli to brain-damaged football announcers.

It kind of disgusts me how narrow minded people have become... the attitude that only a specific kind of game, number of players, UT, etc is acceptable and that, if people don't abide by this "objective skill" bullshit then one should purposefully go out to stop people having a good time until they approach myth as a dreaded chore too (again, gkg doesn't do this, his disciples do). This is not an inherent "game theory" outcome either, gkg, it's the result of your children throwing tantrums. Its actually a lot like blowing your own team up on 2t or purposefully fucking with your cap by going the wrong way etc... but when was the last time you saw me or any other ffa-minded player doing that? HF YOU IDIOTS.

The reason why I like ffa is that its fun, much more so, to me at least, than "competitive" 2t myth. Who the fuck cares about "prestige" dude, are you fuckin serious? When was the last time you cashed in on your M2SBR buddy? Honestly, GKG, I sometimes wonder if you're having fun at all man. There's nothing like wighting 4 different teams in an SD UT STB.

And honestly man, you really just aren't that good at ffa, though I bet you could be. I know you hate arcs but arc duels are a part of that shit... its usually a dueling/skirmish game whereas your the "push master" these days I suppose. You do need to be able to be opportunistic and rape players before anyone can intervene though... so a lot of skills do translate, which is why people like Adren and Par and Tirri rock ffa hard, why some players like Kilg who are good at ffa aren't necessarily the best team players, and why tunnel-visioned BC specialists and 2t champs fuckin SUCK at ffa and throw hissy fits instead.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

I never said some players don't have more fun playing ffa. I only suggested it was less relevant to the community, which is true. Myth is a game, not like real life. Sports are also games, so myth is more like a sport. You can't argue that myth ffa is like real-life, that's retarded. Equating "myth politics" (which is really just player's relationships with one another and not politics at all) to real-world politics is laughable. Get in on that revolution bro.

Speaking of narrow-minded, you yourself seem incapable of fathoming that some players have fun in different ways than you do. I understand that you and many others players enjoy ffa more. I never said otherwise. For me, and many others that only get active during the mwc season, we play myth to compete, or at least find games of higher quality. Oh trust me I am having fun winning mwc championships, much more fun than you I assure you. I am sure my teammates had more fun winning them with me too, just ask them for yourself.

And honestly man, I have been in the finals of every ffa tournament I have ever entered into (which is just 2). So sorry, but you don't really know shit. It wouldn't make sense for a player of my caliber to have that huge of a variance in my abilities between ffa and everything else. It may be different but its not like its a completely different game. You are hardly one to judge as I am certain you have never seen me compete in FFA. You are judging me off of rabble ffa games that clearly I don't give two shits about? Laughable. Even FFA tournaments I don't care that much for, since as you can see, I hold 0 respect for FFA ability. I will continue to play very aggressively as usual to the detriment of my placement, even in tournaments. Don't care. I'm sure I would do better if I did. But guess what? I still do good enough to get into the finals, and that is good enough for me. How many FFA tournaments have you competed in and how many of those did you make to the finals?

I don't hate arcs, but please do tell me more about arc duels. Want to try arc dueling sometime? You are a complete joke.

Who is the tunnel-visioned BC specialist and 2 team champ that you are referring to? Please do tell.


c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

You're a loser, GKG, who wins at myth tournies sometimes. A paradox? No.

You think I'm laughable when you think myth is akin to a sport? Are you fucking kidding me? To quote hadz, "get fit bro."

Not to mention your metaphor is weak. There are many non-2t sports: track and field events, for example. What about all the other video, board, and card games that are played as ffa? Are you really going to try to tell me that myth is more like the NBA than, say, competitive Starcraft? Are you really trying to argue all games worth playing are 2t? Actually the ancient Greeks, arguably the originators of sport, regarded 2t sports as a crass devaluation. Yes I know, "omg greex were gei."

Of course I'm sure you'll answer with some brilliant response like "but miff is more like football, man." Of course, football is surrogate war, and war is not necessarily 2t, etc... this sort of analogical thinking can go ad infinitum. "Games" are a contested, maybe even arbitrary category; I'm playing games with your right now, in fact.

I'm not really down to spend my precious free time grimly arc dueling you, maybe if you catch me online with no games sometime? Would you get really pumped?

But I'm glad you have fun in mwc, could have fooled me. I do too (at least with BoB and lrcg, not as much last year with pogue and kilg and shit). If only you could have fun the other 90% of the time, when you're "practicing."

A side note, gkg, why DIDN'T you win mwc in 2001, since everyone sucked?

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

NewMutator wrote:Not to get off-topic, but is Machiavelli the ultimate troll?
That is a pretty dated interpretation. My favorite theses, and the most intellectually productive ones, I think, are those advanced by Gramsci and Lefort, but realistically The Prince was probably written after Machi's expulsion from Florence, when he was casting about for a position after his fall from power under the short lived republic, and probably directed towards a younger Medici seen as having a good chance of ascending to the papacy.

NewMutator
Posts: 494
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by NewMutator »

Milk Man wrote:
NewMutator wrote:Not to get off-topic, but is Machiavelli the ultimate troll?
That is a pretty dated interpretation. My favorite theses, and the most intellectually productive ones, I think, are those advanced by Gramsci and Lefort, but realistically The Prince was probably written after Machi's expulsion from Florence, when he was casting about for a position after his fall from power under the short lived republic, and probably directed towards a younger Medici seen as having a good chance of ascending to the papacy.
Appeal to novelty? :)

How do you explain the discrepancies between his views in the Prince and those in the Discorsi?

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

Have you read the Prince? He addresses this issue himself...

NewMutator
Posts: 494
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by NewMutator »

From what I understand The Prince is written more forcefully, eschewing some of the stylistic idiosyncrasies that pervade all his other work. The epigrams, for instance, seem to be deliberately provocative. So I'm referring more to differences in literary quality. That's a pretty compelling case for something operating under the surface.

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

Oh man noob mute... I'd keep responding but I'd need a stipend and a grant :) If you catch me a bit drunker on mnet sometime though...

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

Milk Man wrote:You're a loser, GKG, who wins at myth tournies sometimes. A paradox? No.
Well at least now I know I struck a nerve.
Milk Man wrote:You think I'm laughable when you think myth is akin to a sport?
Well I said myth and sports are both games so that is certainly more similar than your comparison of myth ffa being like real-world politics, which yes, was pretty laughable. Btw, ever heard of the term e-sport?
Milk Man wrote:Are you fucking kidding me?
No, I'm not, it was pretty funny.
Milk Man wrote:To quote hadz, "get fit bro."
Former Marine bro.
Milk Man wrote:Not to mention your metaphor is weak. There are many non-2t sports: track and field events, for example.
This would be the myth-equivalent of a competitive co-op map. This is not even player versus player at all. It is player versus environment. You take some measurement of the player against the environment and then compare it to the measurement of the other players. Golf, bowling, all those types of sports are all the same in this regard as well. There is no active interaction, offense, defense, etc. between the players.
Milk Man wrote:What about all the other video, board, and card games that are played as ffa?
Yes, why haven't I heard of a competitive monopoly tournament before? There is competitive poker though, you got me there. In any case, I was thinking about sports and computer games. I am sure there is every kind of game imaginable out there. Hell if we want to think about it that way then let's start comparing it to hop-skotch, hula-hooping, limbo, and drinking contests too.
Milk Man wrote:Are you really going to try to tell me that myth is more like the NBA than, say, competitive Starcraft?
No, Starcraft is an e-sport just like Myth can be during our little MWC's. Certainly more similar, but they only do 1v1 in Starcraft.
Milk Man wrote:Are you really trying to argue all games worth playing are 2t?
No, just talking about the context of myth. Not sure why you suddenly expanded the scope of it to be all games. I rather enjoy poker. But for myth, pretty much yes for me anyway.
Milk Man wrote:Actually the ancient Greeks, arguably the originators of sport, regarded 2t sports as a crass devaluation. Yes I know, "omg greex were gei."
I had no idea bro, learn something new everyday. Let's all think and live more like the ancient Greeks, them guys had it right.
Milk Man wrote:Of course I'm sure you'll answer with some brilliant response like "but miff is more like football, man." Of course, football is surrogate war, and war is not necessarily 2t, etc... this sort of analogical thinking can go ad infinitum. "Games" are a contested, maybe even arbitrary category; I'm playing games with your right now, in fact.
No, I'm sure I won't. Not really following this in any case.
Milk Man wrote:I'm not really down to spend my precious free time grimly arc dueling you, maybe if you catch me online with no games sometime? Would you get really pumped?
If your scared just say you are scared. In any case, I don't care but if you want to punk me out and say something about my arc dueling ability then just be prepared to back up your words is all. I enjoy making people eat their words in this game.
Milk Man wrote:But I'm glad you have fun in mwc, could have fooled me.
Really? You thought the guy that was captaining and winning with the championship teams for the last 2 years wasn't having fun? Do you even understand the concept of competitiveness?
Milk Man wrote:I do too (at least with BoB and lrcg, not as much last year with pogue and kilg and shit). If only you could have fun the other 90% of the time, when you're "practicing."
I don't think anyone is really "practicing" in the off season. Some mildly amusing games the past few weeks for the kickball thing, but yea you are right I don't have as much fun in them. Which is why I have 62 games played in the last 90 days. You think a player like me can have fun and enjoy any kind of challenge in playing against players like you?
Milk Man wrote:A side note, gkg, why DIDN'T you win mwc in 2001, since everyone sucked?
Because everyone sucked, myself included. I thought that was the whole point of that whole discussion. Since I answered your questions how come you don't answer mine: How many FFA tournaments have you competed in and did you make it to the finals? And who is the tunnel-visioned BC specialist and 2 team champ you were referring to?

NewMutator
Posts: 494
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 02:37
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by NewMutator »

Milk Man wrote:Oh man noob mute... I'd keep responding but I'd need a stipend and a grant :) If you catch me a bit drunker on mnet sometime though...
Pretty sure we all could use one or two of those.

Pogue
Posts: 1218
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 16:26
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Pogue »

It's hilarious how Milk Man is downplaying how much he cares about myth. This is the guy who in numerous rabble FFA games rages out and says, "I play to win." He even threatened to boot me one game (grave lmoth) when I was impersonating Phex and rape dayed him and slate (and still won the game) because I wasn't playing the game type. Apparently his a actually name is Otso or some shit as well. What a loser.

P.S. please reply to me after you enjoy another vodka cooler. I love how a grown man drinks teenage girl booze.

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

lol pogue, where do you come up with this shit man? Otso?

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otso Actually pretty cool name, haha.

Renwood
Posts: 493
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 10:16
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Renwood »

MM is right. some of the more "L337" MWC types BItch and MOAN+ rage quit forever about how FFA sucks before and after games, just because they can not master it to any degree.

GKG is incorrect, FFA is what keeps Myth alive NOT 2 team games.
Gee lets see...9 months out of the year there are FAR MORE games played then during MWC season.
Luck is half skill BTW.

Im gonna go out a a limb here and nominated Cruniac as the BC "tunnel vision specialist"

How does crun get credit for being so good? #1 hes a noob (never played on bungie.net and only a few years on myth) #2 he fucking dies in stupid ways all the time.
Then allways blames his loss on "WTF BS DUDS YO LOL" or some BS like "THAT PUS BOUNCE BS GG LOL"
He also has the SA (situational awareness) of a trunip underground.

He suicides if he does not agree with a trade, and cant grasp strategic concepts like "Crun HOLD NORTH WALL"
Im sure he would say some immature thing like, "I was not trying LOL/do not care LOL"
Ever beat somebody and have them say " O... well I wasnt really trying"
Childish

Ren <---MWC 98 Champ
Ren <---7 Phoenix Rising semi finalist, you know back when the CARE FACTOR was 10000000% since it was a BUNGIE tourny and you got a Heron guard named after you and got included on an all new bungie map.

Players should no longer be considered the "BEST Myth Player" if they can not do well in FFA AND 2 team games.
Just like you can not be considered good if you only are skilled in Light maps, but not Dark maps.

And yes I suck at this game 2004-2013. I spent too many years making myth content and not playing it. At least I got a sweet BUNGIE hat (MWC 98 1st place prize) a ton of sweet plugins I worked on to play and some neatO Myth action figures to play with when Cruniac brings over his barbie dolls for a play date.

Dantski
Posts: 436
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 16:35
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Dantski »

MM wrote:But I'm glad you have fun in mwc, could have fooled me. I do too (at least with BoB and lrcg)
Harhar, when we did KB last week and you picked desert I was reminded of the last game in the LRCG vs DM series where I sat out and let you cap. Fortunately it went better for you this time!

Also most people here arguing in favour of FFA > 2Team myth are frankly not very good at FFA. GKG does better than you guys at FFA when he doesn't like playing it and freely admits that he is more interested in fighting than camping/maneuvering. I find tournament FFA a lot more fun than random FFA unless I'm teaming with with a friend because random FFA's are usually terrible with 1-2 people being left alone to compete for the win, while the others fight each other for no gametype benefit (kinda like how GKG plays FFA!). I'd rather play random 2Team games over FFA because there's more often than not better players in those games.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

FFA is certainly popular at its times, moreso during the off season. This is because all the good players aren't around so the team games are just atrocious. If I log on and play 1 team game full of shitty players I am going to suggest ffa so I can be on my own team and don't have to play with them anymore. That is when FFA is better, when its just shitty players everywhere. It takes a certain level of skill to really be viable in a team setting, you have to know how to work as a team. FFA is also where a lot of newbbashing takes place when there might be 1 good player in the game.

How is luck skill? Luck is luck.

Looks like Cruniac struck a nerve. Cruniac is a current MWC champion. Mirin that ring?

Since you want to talk about mastering FFA, answer me the same question that MM was too scared to answer: How many FFA tournaments have you competed in, and how many of them were you a finalist in?

c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊
Posts: 736
Joined: 17 Nov 2012, 11:40
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ »

Zero and zero? Why do you keep asking a rhetorical question over and over?

I've never had time for tournies, I've only even played in like 4 mwcs and never all the way through till elimination (how you people schedule so much miffin I'll never know), despite having played since tfl demo.

*sigh* this is so boring...

All you do is (a) claim to "not understand" what someone's argument is then (b) point out that your good at myth as if this resolves anything, even when it has no bearing on the topic. What do you do in RL when someone counters your argument, challenge them to 1v1 Ping Pong or something?

Anyway I'm done... Lets just HF, we can say you "won" the argument if you want. I'll renounce my claim that I find ffa more fun than 2t. If only I could be a happy-go-lucky guy like you, oh woe is me, the mental anguish of not miffin at a pro level boo hoo!

P.S. Lol dant I'd forgotten about that game... remember par's review? :( http://www.mythgaming.net/mwc2006/article.php?id=49. I think I need to get crushed horribly cappin at least once a year to remind myself how much I sux at/dislike it. :oops: That was a fun year though, for me at least :mrgreen: My first year back miffin since 2001. Funny that the other cap was Gen Pepper, we were buds in tfl, I think that was his first year back too.

P.P.S. GKG's tips about staying sober and treating myth "like a test" are priceless, just priceless.

Edit: Honestly I've never even figured out if cruniac and kirk and the other all-caps, racist, tantrum throwing kids who yell "LOL" are the same person or not... except pogue, I can tell him apart because he truly sucks at miff.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1625
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 13:46
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Giant Killer General »

how was that a rhetorical question? do you understand what a rhetorical question is? Just because you don't want to answer it doesn't suddenly make it rhetorical, lol...

Thank you for the answer. Now do you see how silly you look commenting on my FFA ability?

Then again, I guess you could be the sports-fan equivalent of the guy who says some top athlete sucks, even though said athlete is clearly very good to get to their level, certainly much better than the sports fan. But that would make you a spectator of the game, not a fellow player. And you are a fellow player, so then is it really more like a much lesser player calling a much better player bad? Hrmm...

Or maybe you were speaking in relative terms? In which case you would have to compare me to the absolute best FFAers and then call me bad. Just calling me bad when you yourself are much much worse doesn't hold any weight. But going with that line of thinking then gives me reason to go around saying everyone else sucks at 1v1, 2 team games, capping, etc. I may say a lot of people suck at those things, but certainly not everyone. Quite the dilemma...

I'm actually quite good at ping pong! so yea if someone wanted to insult my ping-pong ability then I would challenge them and find out. Seems like a pretty logical thing to do. Actions speak louder than words, so why talk about it when you can just demonstrate it first-hand? Your analogy doesn't work for just any argument.

I never asked you to renounce your claim that FFA is more fun than 2t. I am sure it is more fun for you and some other players. I only said it was less relevant to the community. I am not sure how you keep misunderstanding that. The entire community doesn't become active again every year for a few months for an FFA tournament. They do it for 2 team.

Well if I didn't understand something you said, feel free to clarify. Nothing I can really do otherwise.

p.p.p.s. I never said treat myth like a test. hilarious fabrication though. I said the "care" in mything is like the extra effort you put forth when trying to mentally focus for a test because it is a mental game. don't get butthurt bro.

I have no idea why you and renwood keep mentioning Cruniac and Kirk in this conversation. They had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation yet their names are brought up repeatedly and at random. They giving you nightmares bros? damn that is some epic butthurt.

Pogue
Posts: 1218
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 16:26
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Pogue »

Milk Man wrote: Edit: Honestly I've never even figured out if cruniac and kirk and the other all-caps, racist, tantrum throwing kids who yell "LOL" are the same person or not... except pogue, I can tell him apart because he truly sucks at miff.
Yep I suck and still own you like a bitch in pretty much every game I've played against you. What does that say about you? Keep mirin, stay jelly, always mad.


Pogue
Posts: 1218
Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 16:26
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Pogue »

That's exactly the kind of response I expected from you Forrest Gump. You never disappoint.

P.S. last time I talked to Kirk he didn't even know these forums existed, but next I see him I will tell him you gave him a shout out.


SamTheButcher
Posts: 209
Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 22:50
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by SamTheButcher »

In my opinion you cant really compare FFA and 2Tm and say a person that plays more of one type than the other is better at Myth. Better at what at Myth? They both have different variables and dynamics that make a person good at either one. If you were going to judge just pure fighting ability you would have to judge it by 1v1. All 3 of those are almost like different games. To be good at any of those 3 you need to be good at fighting but the other skills vary. For 2Tm especially if you are a Capt you need to be good at an over all battle strategy, unit selection distribution ect. Some negatives of 2 Tm is that you have to rely heavily on other people (your teammates) so you could be winning personally on the battle field but your teammates lose on their flank and you could end up losing the game. There is more battlefield type strategy involved in 2 Tm but somewhat less personal responsibility for a win. Some positive with 2 Tm you know exactly what team you will be fighting and you can use the whole map, you dont have to worry about being doubled or someone not playing the gametype and just attacking you and causing you to lose. Those are things you dont have to consider. With FFA (not tm FFA) you are not relying on other people to pull their weight or if they are following orders you are in control and personally responsible for your army. I see that as a positive. Some negatives of FFA is that you dont always know who or where you will fight. You could be doubled or have to fight someone not playing the gametype ect. Those thing take certain skills to deal with. Like knowing who or when to fight depending on game type. We all know what is involved an the different skills that are involved in 2 Tm and FFA. With them involving different skill sets it is hard to say someone is best at Myth if they are only really good at one type of play and not as much at the other. If you are judging by pure fighting ability that is something different all together. There could be 3 best Mythers. There could be the best 2 Tm player because they are a great Capt, a real good fighter that helps carry their team ect. There could be a best FFA someone that is a good fighter, able to play the gametype to their advantage, mitigate being doubled, attacked from people not playing the game type ect and consistently win FFA. There could also be someone that is best at 1v1. They are real good at just pure fighting skill but maybe they have tunnel vision in 2 Tm games and dont pay attention to the whole battle or in FFA they dont know how to avoid fights when necessary or how to best take advantage of a gametype ect. Then to say if one game type is better than another thats like trying to say football is better than basketball. It is purely opinion. I dont see any reason to argue about one type of player being better or if 2Tm is better than FFA. There is really nothing solid to base it on. Someone would have to win or place high in a FFA tourny. Then win or place high as a Capt in a big KB style tourney (where over all player skill was pretty even for all teams). Then win or place high in a 1v1 tourney. Actually they would have to win everyone of those to be the best Myther. Because there could be that series of tourneys to find the all around best Myther and points given based on what place a person got in each tourney and then the player with the highest point total winning the title of best over all Myther. That person though could win the over all without winning any of the individual tournies. They would be sort of a jack of all trades, but master of none. I think the argument is pretty much pointless.

The negatives most people say of 2 Tm and FFA are the reason that I think Gimble CTF is the best map. If played by gentlemans rules of letting everyone finish their first fight. It is like a mini tourney. You get the 1 Tm vs another Tm like in 2 Tm, without worrying about being doubled or people not playing the gametype, but you dont have to rely on other people like in 2 Tm. In that it is like FFA where you are fully responsible for your victory. Then you have the second stage after the 1st fights where you do get the multiple fronts and enemies all fighting for the same goal like in FFA. So you kinda get the best of FFA and 2 Tm without some of the negatives. My point is more people should play Gimble CTF following Gentleman's rules :D

punkUser
Posts: 1413
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by punkUser »

Sam, you really gotta use paragraphs...
SamTheButcher wrote:My point is more people should play Gimble CTF following Gentleman's rules :D
Meh, I'll kill who I want when I want thank you :)

Hadzenegger
Posts: 121
Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 01:11
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Hadzenegger »

LOL WAY TOO LONG; DIDNT READ

Renwood
Posts: 493
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 10:16
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by Renwood »

GKG please quote me on when I ever mentioned Kirk. I happen to enjoy kirk and his antics.
I mention crun because he is not very good, and fucks up often, but somehow you guys in your little "L337" clique allways turn a blind eye when one of you fucks up in a major way as not to make them look bad. But if it was anybody else, they would be all over them.

I do not need to be mirrorin anybody, I have THE FIRST MWC RING ever forged Deep Within the heart of Tharsis, One ring to rule them all and in the Darkness WIGHT THEM!
I won back when there were 92 other MWC teams to compete against, not your whipmy assed 12-8 team MWC wins you guys have.
I have played in 1 ffa tourny 7PH.

I also enjoy long walks on the beach and youtube cute puppy videos.

grim
Posts: 331
Joined: 22 Oct 2012, 17:33
Contact:

Re: Myth Strategy

Post by grim »

Hadzenegger wrote:LOL WAY TOO LONG; DIDNT READ
NOT FIT ENOUGH TO READ LOL

Post Reply

Return to “Eblis Stone”