| 1 |
Spoilering some tactical comments because I think they're a little off-topic.
|
1 |
Spoilering some tactical comments because I think they're a little off-topic.
|
| 2 |
[spoiler]
|
2 |
[spoiler]
|
| 3 |
[quote]And I've seen nukes within the first 10-15 minutes of games, especially from certain players, so why would an anti nuke in first 10 minutes even remotely be a kick-able offense?[/quote]
|
3 |
[quote]And I've seen nukes within the first 10-15 minutes of games, especially from certain players, so why would an anti nuke in first 10 minutes even remotely be a kick-able offense?[/quote]
|
| 4 |
I think good play would be to wait to build the antinuke until either your team scouts the nuke silo or observes that one or more enemy players don't appear to be doing much. A very early nuke rush *should* be reasonably detectable, and building an unused antinuke and wasting that metal so early in the game is very bad for the team as a whole.
|
4 |
I think good play would be to wait to build the antinuke until either your team scouts the nuke silo or observes that one or more enemy players don't appear to be doing much. A very early nuke rush *should* be reasonably detectable, and building an unused antinuke and wasting that metal so early in the game is very bad for the team as a whole.
|
| 5 |
\n
|
5 |
\n
|
| 6 |
I think if your team had asked that you stop building the antinuke in this situation (especially if they said they did not believe a nuke was coming soon) and you had continued to build it, you would have been in the wrong, although even then the kick seems like overkill. Given that no such request occurred, the kick seems definitely unwarranted.
|
6 |
I think if your team had asked that you stop building the antinuke in this situation (especially if they said they did not believe a nuke was coming soon) and you had continued to build it, you would have been in the wrong, although even then the kick seems like overkill. Given that no such request occurred, the kick seems definitely unwarranted.
|
| 7 |
\n
|
7 |
\n
|
| 8 |
[quote]And how would you, specifically, with a gun ship fac, create an impenetrable wall around an anti so that a widow had exactly 0% chance of getting in to stun it? Keep in mind, it has to be a 0% chance of the widow possibly getting in, because that's exactly what a box of LLT's does. I'm interested in knowing, because I've seen too many instances where even llt's spaced 1 apart has allowed a widow to get in and stun before dying.[/quote]
|
8 |
[quote]And how would you, specifically, with a gun ship fac, create an impenetrable wall around an anti so that a widow had exactly 0% chance of getting in to stun it? Keep in mind, it has to be a 0% chance of the widow possibly getting in, because that's exactly what a box of LLT's does. I'm interested in knowing, because I've seen too many instances where even llt's spaced 1 apart has allowed a widow to get in and stun before dying.[/quote]
|
| 9 |
My
preferred
solution
would
be
to
ask
my
teammate
to
send
20
fleas
or
some
such
on
circle
guard.
Not
everything
must
be
done
by
one
player
alone.
|
9 |
My
preferred
solution
would
be
to
ask
my
teammate
to
send
20
fleas
or
some
such
on
circle
guard.
Not
everything
must
be
done
by
one
player
alone.
Certainly
a
more
rigorous
defence
than
that
can
wait
until
an
enemy
nuke
is
actually
confirmed.
The
possibility
of
losing
the
game
to
an
unscouted
nuke
if
you
get
Widowed
is
less
than
the
possibility
of
losing
because
you
spent
3k
on
an
anti
against
no
enemy
nuke,
or
the
possibility
that
because
you
spent
so
much
metal
on
lotuses
instead
of
army
the
enemy
team
got
in
range
to
Shockley
your
anti.
|
| 10 |
[/spoiler]
|
10 |
[/spoiler]
|
End the bullshit TMNL clan abusing kick