| 1 |
Sure, attacking me in general isn't insane. However his entire gameplay is optimal for making me lose but useless for making him win.
|
1 |
Sure, attacking me in general isn't insane. However his entire gameplay is optimal for making me lose but useless for making him win.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Jostling for spots is required for good FFA play, but you need to have enough on hand to make a viable play for a spot AND it needs to not be a game losing move for the other player. The northern three mexes would possibly be a viable push, destroying 7 mexes (3 unreachable in ocean) to get 4 really isn't. He knew his army was greatly outmassed (he scouts an army at 5 mins in that's bigger than what he has at any point in the game) and that he could not hold the 4 mexes and that they would not be conceded to him within the first 8 minutes.
|
3 |
Jostling for spots is required for good FFA play, but you need to have enough on hand to make a viable play for a spot AND it needs to not be a game losing move for the other player. The northern three mexes would possibly be a viable push, destroying 7 mexes (3 unreachable in ocean) to get 4 really isn't. He knew his army was greatly outmassed (he scouts an army at 5 mins in that's bigger than what he has at any point in the game) and that he could not hold the 4 mexes and that they would not be conceded to him within the first 8 minutes.
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
His entire Cerb setup and defence building queue implies it's clearly for area denial, NOT for actually taking the area (it's too far to defend it and he's building defences next to cerbs, not waiting for the mexes to be taken). This makes sense in a teams or 1v1 situation, but definitely NOT in FFA when every other player in the game (and the fact of two resignations) is telling you that a particular player is dominating.
|
5 |
His entire Cerb setup and defence building queue implies it's clearly for area denial, NOT for actually taking the area (it's too far to defend it and he's building defences next to cerbs, not waiting for the mexes to be taken). This makes sense in a teams or 1v1 situation, but definitely NOT in FFA when every other player in the game (and the fact of two resignations) is telling you that a particular player is dominating.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
I think the mockery in game is fairly strong evidence that there was some resentment there.
|
7 |
I think the mockery in game is fairly strong evidence that there was some resentment there.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
\n
|
9 |
\n
|
| 10 |
There
are
plenty
of
viable
FFA
strats
@n0ddz
could
have
used.
Turtle
and
super
wouldn't
have
been
too
bad
(
a
bit
of
a
stretch,
but
possible)
.
Build
up,
make
athenas
and
then
try
a
sneak
attack
when
everyone
has
ganged
up
on
the
biggest
player
would
have
been
quite
strong.
Ally
and
coordinate
with
Chomo
for
coordinated
attack
and
divide
the
spoils.
Heck,
build
up
swarm
and
rush
would
have
at
least
had
some
logic
to
it!
(
and
would
have
been
less
bad
for
my
win
chances
then
staying
just
at
the
annoyance
threshold)
|
10 |
There
are
plenty
of
viable
FFA
strats
@n0ddz
could
have
used.
Turtle
and
super
wouldn't
have
been
too
bad
(
a
bit
of
a
stretch,
but
possible)
.
Build
up,
make
athenas
and
then
try
a
sneak
attack
when
everyone
has
ganged
up
on
the
biggest
player
would
have
been
quite
strong.
Ally
and
coordinate
with
@Chomolungma
for
coordinated
attack
and
divide
the
spoils.
Heck,
build
up
swarm
and
rush
would
have
at
least
had
some
logic
to
it!
(
and
would
have
been
less
bad
for
my
win
chances
then
staying
just
at
the
annoyance
threshold)
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
I don't think it's a clear enough case for modaction, but do think it's fairly clear from a "what was his most likely goal?" perspective.
|
12 |
I don't think it's a clear enough case for modaction, but do think it's fairly clear from a "what was his most likely goal?" perspective.
|
B1400655 7 on neurope_a7 (Multiplayer)