Bash power or support mid?
Bash power or support mid?
Ok, so let's say you're on a bot or top lane and you just pushed your lane enemy off the field, and you see the mid guy going toe to toe with mid, but you also have a chance to bash the gens completely, what do you do? Support mid or burn gens?
Re: Bash power or support mid?
This all depends on the map/player skill/situation. In most instances of good team communication you'll find out what to do quickly.
On a map like Estia, a power farm is located on your lane in the contested VP section, so abshing power is fairly easy, it's beyond a wall, you can move behind the wall should you get counter attacked, but your ally is also easier to support. You need to ask or make the call yourself; Is my ally in trouble? Would we bleed more if I bashed gens or would it force them to disengage?
On Calderis the story is different, mid is much easier to support from all angles and allows for flanking plays, whereas the power is pushed much furth back to make bashing a lot harder when you don't have a solid advantage. My advice here would be if your ally is engaged and you won your lane, supprot them, as you can consolidate to the power or set up bunkers/shrines etc to solidify the advantage over mid.
On a map like Estia, a power farm is located on your lane in the contested VP section, so abshing power is fairly easy, it's beyond a wall, you can move behind the wall should you get counter attacked, but your ally is also easier to support. You need to ask or make the call yourself; Is my ally in trouble? Would we bleed more if I bashed gens or would it force them to disengage?
On Calderis the story is different, mid is much easier to support from all angles and allows for flanking plays, whereas the power is pushed much furth back to make bashing a lot harder when you don't have a solid advantage. My advice here would be if your ally is engaged and you won your lane, supprot them, as you can consolidate to the power or set up bunkers/shrines etc to solidify the advantage over mid.
The internal battery has run dry, the game can now be played. However, clock based events will no longer occur.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
It depends on the times passed. If it is early game, totally bashing power! With that, I can slow down my enemy. They must spend more req for more power so they will suffer in T2 or even in T1 maybe. Also, decreasing the chance to face with a walker since they all cost more than 100 power. Even he spends it, that means he has no power to upgrade his infantry. And because it is early game, no need to rush. I can take back every victory point lost at bottem later with my stronger army.
In T2, power bashing is for T3. Because nobody wants to see an IG player comes with a Baneblade. In this point, you must judge well. Incase of a 2v1 in bot, judge it good. If you see that you will loose bot no matter what, bash the power and than march to their natural victory point. There might be a player to defend it but come on, force him off. Than, one player must fall back to their natural victory point to take it back. That means, there is 1 player less for bot. Than enlight your friends from chat to double the bot and take it back. Problem solved!
In T2, power bashing is for T3. Because nobody wants to see an IG player comes with a Baneblade. In this point, you must judge well. Incase of a 2v1 in bot, judge it good. If you see that you will loose bot no matter what, bash the power and than march to their natural victory point. There might be a player to defend it but come on, force him off. Than, one player must fall back to their natural victory point to take it back. That means, there is 1 player less for bot. Than enlight your friends from chat to double the bot and take it back. Problem solved!
Re: Bash power or support mid?
Ok thanks! I'll think about this some more.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
I think you always have to warn your teammates of your actions. So if you are going to leave your teammate alone against 2 opponents and during this time cap the other side of the map and bash generators then he has to play defensively, lose some ground but preserve the generators, then it translates in a winning situation for your team, then you join his forces and you fight them back. It is all dependent on army compositions, some races can hold ground greatly, some of them will fail at it, you have to consider these factors too. The worst thing that happens in team games is where 2 armies constantly stick together and stomp isolated players. It is all because of miscommunication. Gotta remember this. If you are alone against 2 just slowly back off without engaging but at the same time still threatening and holding them up a bit. If you fully commit to the fight against 2, the odds that you will emerge victorious are very low and the risk that you will lose units and valuable points/generators is very high. So many times I saw how players warn about being doubled yet fail to properly manage with this situation. It happens in both 3v3 (two fighting over a lane with resources, the other four fight for victory points) and 2v2.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
I believe there's a quote saying.
Don't fight if there's nothing to win. (A very rough translation) , but the general principal is that if you do indeed fight, there must be something to reap the rewards post-skirmish. If all you do is just fight, because hey- there's a req point and my buddy is fighting, that's hardly a justified attention of yours, unless your teammate decides to go for a very questionable all-in. (Which they never should)
The core gameplay is to try to focus yourself around fighting around essential and crucial objectives, that's primarily the generators & the victory points. The requisition points in higher team-games loses alot of their values, but they should never be completely undervalued, because in the long haul, they generate quite a profit of requisition income, which can as well be used to restore lost generators.
I see all too much fighting over absolutely nothing, and you can take this general perspective on almost any game that's a PvP enviroment. Sometimes people pick a fight, and they extend all-too much for it, and they end up overextending, and they have teammates backing away. This leads to the person who overextended blaming his allies for not backing him up, and qq'ing over "We could have killed X or Y", but the risk vs reward, and the control over objective was lost due to one persons ignorance.
I'm going to take an interesting perspective and take on say, Argus Desert Gate (3v3), it's quite interesting to see alot of people commit so hard on taking control over the north side, but there's hardly any valueable resources to reap the benefits from that location, when you compare the middle and the southern portion of the map, that allows you both to do a quick-fling up to north side, once you do decide to retake, as well as 2x additional power node locations. The reason why people do it, is merely just because of stupid old habbits for the most part, and the turtle nature aspect. There's actually alot more strategical and vital points to capture if you decide to go for more commitment in the middle/south side. I'm not saying you should abandon top completely, but it should not be a the most crucial and essential point of the map, at least until mid-late game, when the VP's are a core point of interest to assert pressure.
Altho alot of this depends on the map design, some maps generally just don't provide the players with the flexibility and diverse manueverability, and it becomes a turtlefest. That's why you really want core objectives to ensure a fight occurs at those locations, or to encourage it. Rather than try to provide the players with very safe-resource income, that is not very easy to take over.
Don't fight if there's nothing to win. (A very rough translation) , but the general principal is that if you do indeed fight, there must be something to reap the rewards post-skirmish. If all you do is just fight, because hey- there's a req point and my buddy is fighting, that's hardly a justified attention of yours, unless your teammate decides to go for a very questionable all-in. (Which they never should)
The core gameplay is to try to focus yourself around fighting around essential and crucial objectives, that's primarily the generators & the victory points. The requisition points in higher team-games loses alot of their values, but they should never be completely undervalued, because in the long haul, they generate quite a profit of requisition income, which can as well be used to restore lost generators.
I see all too much fighting over absolutely nothing, and you can take this general perspective on almost any game that's a PvP enviroment. Sometimes people pick a fight, and they extend all-too much for it, and they end up overextending, and they have teammates backing away. This leads to the person who overextended blaming his allies for not backing him up, and qq'ing over "We could have killed X or Y", but the risk vs reward, and the control over objective was lost due to one persons ignorance.
I'm going to take an interesting perspective and take on say, Argus Desert Gate (3v3), it's quite interesting to see alot of people commit so hard on taking control over the north side, but there's hardly any valueable resources to reap the benefits from that location, when you compare the middle and the southern portion of the map, that allows you both to do a quick-fling up to north side, once you do decide to retake, as well as 2x additional power node locations. The reason why people do it, is merely just because of stupid old habbits for the most part, and the turtle nature aspect. There's actually alot more strategical and vital points to capture if you decide to go for more commitment in the middle/south side. I'm not saying you should abandon top completely, but it should not be a the most crucial and essential point of the map, at least until mid-late game, when the VP's are a core point of interest to assert pressure.
Altho alot of this depends on the map design, some maps generally just don't provide the players with the flexibility and diverse manueverability, and it becomes a turtlefest. That's why you really want core objectives to ensure a fight occurs at those locations, or to encourage it. Rather than try to provide the players with very safe-resource income, that is not very easy to take over.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
About Argus I would disagree with you.
Top is that important because it contains a safe genfarm. The genfarms situated in the middle are hard/impossible to control and very easy to destroy (that is just the middle, not that far). It is also harder to lead battle near the enemy base, that is why you don't want to do that. Top is pretty important at any stage of the game.
The best strategy for the middle player is to fully commit his forces at top position and send a capping unit that would counter the capping unit of the other middle player to temporarily take control over the middle points and decap the natural points. Usually there is no capping unit from the middle player because it is hard to manage this unit and at the same time be effective at engaging two armies at top. You gotta learn to do that to be the best middle player ever on this map and on any similar map too.
Top is that important because it contains a safe genfarm. The genfarms situated in the middle are hard/impossible to control and very easy to destroy (that is just the middle, not that far). It is also harder to lead battle near the enemy base, that is why you don't want to do that. Top is pretty important at any stage of the game.
The best strategy for the middle player is to fully commit his forces at top position and send a capping unit that would counter the capping unit of the other middle player to temporarily take control over the middle points and decap the natural points. Usually there is no capping unit from the middle player because it is hard to manage this unit and at the same time be effective at engaging two armies at top. You gotta learn to do that to be the best middle player ever on this map and on any similar map too.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
No, top has no value. The argue that it's a safe farm means you dont' need to pour your heart & soul into it at the start of the game. It's so stupidly easy to retake, so there's no point in going for an early agression it. Absolutely none. If you go full retard top, means you'll maybe hold a requisition point and a power node, which is not even likely. How often do you see that happend in reality? Not really.
If you hold mid/bot, you'll have the potential to hold the following
3 requisition point , 2 power nodes.
+ Map dominance.
This is not even up for discussion. Early-game top has 0 value.
If you hold mid/bot, you'll have the potential to hold the following
3 requisition point , 2 power nodes.
+ Map dominance.
This is not even up for discussion. Early-game top has 0 value.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
I don't hear you talking about potential massive flanks from the top, and the screwed retreat that ensues if you lose.
Re: Bash power or support mid?
Dalakh wrote:I don't hear you talking about potential massive flanks from the top, and the screwed retreat that ensues if you lose.
There is a real distance between these two points that we are talking about. He should be able to at least take down 2 generators in that time. Also, it shouldn't be too hard to keep an eye at his back.
Return to “Strategy Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests