Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiamat101
This is how PA works fundamentally You are doing one of those basic ideas. My point is saying this set of stats is too easy to fort i beg you to show me a set of stats in the past 15 rounds where you CANT fort because they will always exist and if the players are good enough they will do well. So to attack a set of stats for being too easy to fort just tells me that you are not creative and would rather just bash at Pat because you've even said that my set 2 rounds ago was the worst now you are saying this set is even worse than that? You either must have had your brain taken out and put back in or that's the only way you can analyze stats.
|
First of all, i dont know why you have to round up your post with an insult, but ok i guess this is common behaviour in the anonymity of the internet. I wont pick it up though - so make up your own "insulting answer" if you feel it belongs to a good discussion.
Like booji and sandvold allready pointed out there is no viable option for value play while not sitting in a forted gal, as the options for ally def are simply not available or too weak. And relying on prelaunched defence works only for the most active.
At the same time its only secondary if those forts exist of 1 or more alliances, but as recent politics showed, usually its 1 alliance.
There wont be a set where you CANT fort, but there have been a lot of sets where forting wasnt the only viable option. Usually a set where 1 metaclass can hit 4 others is doomed to be easily too defensive. This set has 2 of those, spread on 4 of 5 races.
Apologies for my rather harsh statement about those sets beeing the worst sets i have ever seen, iīll try to adapt my expression here and call them just bad sets.