billiv15 wrote:
Yep, and it was in the post he quoted. Instead of reading it carefully for what I was actually saying, he chose to use the usual "all you care about is meta" argument. It's stupid. There is nothing in my post that allows you to claim it was "all about meta" in anyway. You can only make it so by interpreting it that way, but there are a number of fairly clear markers denoting I'm talking about the wider game in a number of places.
Did I say you cared only about meta? Or did I (and yes, this is what did ), state that you were only ADRESSING meta in your post? I think any of those people who think all gamers users care about is competitive play would have a field day on your post as proof of their viewpoint as true.
So I have the wrong definition of Meta. Ok. I apologize. I take it to mean what’s played in the hardcore tournament scene. That might be the sticking point. Your post, from a reasonable interpretation based on standard expectations of American English, lent consideration almost entirely, if not totally, to the hardcore competitive scene (which I mistakenly(?) equated with meta.)
With statements like these below, how is anyone supposed to determine you are talking about the casual scene as well, except perhaps some sort of incidental mention?
billiv15 wrote:
-…fail in terms of meta analysis. Swarms were not generally competitive pre Lancer and Yodabuck.
-However, at the time Yoda and the Lancer came out, I think you need to look at what the meta was and how these interacted.
-…brought them back to the top of the competitive game without replacing the factions that were already there.
-For example, if you are running a Rebel swarm with the IC (one of the things people believe are dead in the current meta),…
For the last one, I took it to mean you did not agree that it was dead in the current meta, but did you mean that you agree? The way you phrased it is ambiguous. If you agree with it, “people” is kind of unclear to put there.
billiv15 wrote:
Can't have it both ways champ. You are making a "meta" issue here again, right after criticizing me for it lol.
You claim I don’t follow any of your points, but then say that I am committing some immense contradiction by trying to include your meta-heavy assessments, and then say that I’m supposed to leave meta out of it. Just what in the San Hill do you expect me to do? I would have to ignore almost that entire post of your to avoid addressing something that has to do with the meta issue that YOU brought up.
billiv15 wrote:
Swarms of many types are perfectly viable, and even when they lose to a well played lancer or Yobuck, they beat enough other things that taking a 40-60 odds bad matchup in 200 isn't that big of a deal - particularly when there are so many counter options already available.
You asked for a counter to yobuck - try zuckuss. Try Vader Scourge or some other reposte. Try disruptive. Try things with 30-40 or more hps for your swarm - so on and so forth.
Talk about ignoring points. Like I said before, it’s not too hard to get around zuckuss on a gallop, with the immense speed. If you mean shooting Yobuck before he even starts his turn, that’s a joke. With the doombot, it’s not too hard to keep Yobuck out of sight AND still move into position for a devastating strafe. You might have a point about Higher HP, however, generally I would say the higher HP, the higher the cost, and the less characters can actually be used. Vader Scourge doing 30 damage once per gallop doesn’t do much against the immense HP that I already mentioned. How hard is it to gallop outside the disruptive with the aforementioned immense speed?
Maybe what the real problem is my different definition of meta, and we should take a few steps back.
But to actually start with a swarm idea and make it able to counter Yobuck (whom I literally do see half or more of the time), you pretty much need to make it no longer a swarm, with all the high-cost, high-hp characters that need to be added just to survive past round 1.