| 1 |
[quote]if you pull it off, it can be great but if you fail, your setback
|
1 |
[quote]if you pull it off, it can be great but if you fail, your setback
|
| 2 |
[...]
|
2 |
[...]
|
| 3 |
Do it in a 1vs1 and fail, you most likely will lose, so it a double edged sword. [/quote]
|
3 |
Do it in a 1vs1 and fail, you most likely will lose, so it a double edged sword. [/quote]
|
| 4 |
Sounds exactly like cheese to me...
|
4 |
Sounds exactly like cheese to me...
|
|
|
5 |
\n
|
|
|
6 |
I don't claim to know a lot about high level 1v1 in ZK, but if countering this (very seldomly seen) strategy requires more scouting investment than "normal", you put yourself behind compared to a "normally" scouting opponent. You could basically choose between being at a slight disadvantage in "normal" games and basically always winning against the occasional cheese, or losing to that strategy (comnaps or other cheese) almost every time they are used but being mildly disadvantaged most of the other times.
|
|
|
7 |
\n
|
|
|
8 |
Granted, it's not exactly that black and white, but how would you tell from the outside that sacrificing that one glaive into the Defender will give you gamebreaking information instead of just a dead glaive and 26 metal for the opponent? Just that you didn't meet other raiders on your way across the map doesn't necessarily mean your opponent has to be cheesing...
|
Comnap needs to die