Quote from uberman

Having both chaos and order accounts, it seems to me the biggest advantage chaos player often has is that a lot of players dont know the strengths, strategies and weakness of chaos.
Unfortunatly, the lack of a players experience makes him think that he's against a much stronger set of units than he actually is, and puts his defeat down to chaos being overpowered as often order players often only see the strengths of the chaos units.

In terms of units, not having a meric/healer really can be a disadvantage in a big fight. Passive is great for the skirmish stage, but weaker than healing for the big battles.
Not having range attacks on the giant makes them far weaker than the order giant in many situations.
having turrets not walls is a serious disadvantage.
Poison is only very useful when he (be it stupidly or via KIA) doesnt have a meric to cure it.
dead do very poor damage (I think, may be wrong) and are too slow to be useful in the skirmish stage of play, only in the fairly static big battles are they really much use.
Allbows seem much better than wings all things considered.

So, it is my opinion that in several ways chaos is a lot weaker than many order players understand.

And, with respect, Tec being able to own with chaos speaks more of his skill then the power of chaos.
Any high skilled player would probably own with anything half decent against a moderate player with better units.

You're not looking from both sides of things... This just seems really biased.

Quote from uberman

Take it easy guys, please not that I did not put words in your mouth, nor claim you said anything; note that as bolded below, what I said (as opposed to what you may have mis-read and thought I meant) is a series of questions, I assert nothing on your behalf.
Are you suggesting Medusa + Marrowkai combination can beat one giant?
Are you saying two ninja cant kill a medusa with near certainty?
Or are you saying it would be 'balanced correctly' when one ninja
.

I ask you to remember that I am answering all of these questions in the context of a mid-to-late game battle. No one with the desire to win will have a lone Medusa in the front lines, or even several Medusa in the front lines.

1. When I said "Medusa+Marrowkai combination", that was me being lazy, I apologize. I don't mean one literal Medusa + Marrowkai. An appropriate combo of them should do the trick. The answer to your question, is unknown. It's entirely possible.
And in the context of the late game, their abilities significantly reduce the giant's meat shield capabilities.

2. No. It takes two shinobi to take out one Medusa.

Quote from PsychoticCheez

This assumes they catch her. The shinobi cannot cloak at an optimal time. As soon as they are in the range of a Marrowkai or Medusa, one is rendered ineffective. If they cloak before they are in range, then Medusa + Marrowkai have time to run away.

3. I have not once suggested this. "No" is the answer.

uberman is as far from objective as he can be for many reasons.

For one, how can you possibly argue that lag affects crawlers as much as archers? It is not arguable. It is actually highly annoying that you would even suggest this. Archers can only kite with a series of attack/retreat commands....say maybe 12 clicks of attack/retreat before it needs to garrison. Crawlers just needs one command/click, which is garrison once it has low health.

There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being biased and/or stupid.

Quote from MiamiBigAL

uberman is as far from objective as he can be for many reasons.

For one, how can you possibly argue that lag affects crawlers as much as archers? It is not arguable. It is actually highly annoying that you would even suggest this. Archers can only kite with a series of attack/retreat commands....say maybe 12 clicks of attack/retreat before it needs to garrison. Crawlers just needs one command/click, which is garrison once it has low health.

There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being biased and/or stupid.

Well, if you're going to "kite" with an Archidon, but only A-move with a crawler, than yeah sure. But he was talking about animation canceling, which, if the Archidon control requires your 12 clicks, the crawler requires 10. The difference is, there is normally 2 crawlers, so that number slightly increases.

Quote from MiamiBigAL

There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being biased and/or stupid.

I find that ironic. I forget, do you even have chaos?

Quote from MiamiBigAL

uberman is as far from objective as he can be for many reasons.

Actually I have two accounts, my order account where I play only order and its a free account - well I actually paid membership, but cancelled the auto payment incase I didnt like the game (cos I dont want to forget), and instantly lost membership - which is a rip off having paid a month membership I expect a months membership. Also I have my chaos account, which I only ever play chaos.

Fact 1; my rating is consistently higher on the order account
Facr 2; I have significantly more played games (about 20% more) on my order account

Given fact 1 I have HARD EVIDENCE that for a similar skilled order player its easier to win more games (cos I am the same player)
Given fact 2 (that I played order more than chaos) why would I, in all honesty and reasonableness, be said to be chaos-bais?

For one, how can you possibly argue that lag affects crawlers as much as archers? It is not arguable. It is actually highly annoying that you would even suggest this. Archers can only kite with a series of attack/retreat commands....say maybe 12 clicks of attack/retreat before it needs to garrison. Crawlers just needs one command/click, which is garrison once it has low health.

Thats because I believe its a noob strategy to simply wait till low crawler health and garrison.
What I do, is both attack and pull away the one getting agro a short distance - i.e. kite while the other crawler attacks the sword. If he changes target, I change crawler thats pulling away and let the original target attack, if he follows the retreating creeper it kites and regens while the other one attacks.

They have so little life, and do so little damage that this takes considerable skill - very VERY similar to when I kite my archer with the fire-run to reload - turn to fire-run to reload cycle.

If you dont even have chaos, all YOU see is a crawler staying out of range while the other chews your legs. But of course, your the one being objective (so you seem to think)

There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being biased and/or stupid.

There is indeed.
Now I ask you to edit your post and remove the ad hominem attack, (if you dont know what that means google it and learn something) or I will report you for implying I am stupid. I may be wrong but I am not stupid.
(fact 3; I have a graduate and post graduate degree and over 20 years experience in the working environment in a range of fields)
Therefore you are demonstrably wrong.
You may say something like 'There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being wrong and/or badly informed' and get your point across without being personal.
FFS you attack my ideas, demonstrate I am wrong and I learn from it, or you can or you attack my stickmen and trash my statue if you can and I learn technique from it, but if you attack me I will put you down.

If your going to counter facts 1,2,3,4 above and below by your opinions and nothing else, then you lose, dude.
Because evidence > opinion. Evidence is even greater than your opinion, which obviously you give a special value to.

Oh, P.S. fact 4; Tec (who knows significantly more than me about the game) does provide an argument for my point about the similarity between crawlers and archer kiting - more hard evidence that you are wrong.
(Obviously, but for clarification; even if you disagree with the argument by Tec, thats irrelevent, as it proves a reasonable argument can be provided, and this proves you wrong and me right - that it can be reasonably argued there are similarities in the effect of lag between archers and crawlers used in advanced micro-management methods as I suggested)

P.P.S.
Nothing personal, retract your implication that I am stupid and I'll go easy on you. (Or, in other words; its back to a friendly debate, no hard feelings).
If your just a kid, sorry (although kids have less sensitivity to being wrong than adults, so in that case you dont even know why I am apologizing).
And respect for your rating, your obviously a much better player of stick than I am currently.

ON the order greater than chaos topic; two things
1 walls vs turrets
2 mana use of poison ability and healing

miner Walls are far far better than the turrets.

A couple of walls (ideally exactly upon each other so the victim thinks its only 1, and will stay there thinking he's nearly through, little knowing there is a second wall underneath) can stop a large force for a few valuable seconds, while they are lined up in a predictable location, unable to touch the wizzards who know exactly where to stand to be max range and put up electric walls to hit the enemy. Yes, I do this myself as Order, and watch em weep baby.

Chaos gets a couple of turrets, which the onrushers totally ignore in the majority of situations.

In a rush-counter-rush (both armies go for the enemy statue) the turret is insignificant, a couple of walls will hold the enemy back enough to let you pawn his statue.


On the issue of poison and mana use; my pack of dead can drain the entire mana of 4-5 praying miners while spamming poison (their main function) but the healing merics dont use mana to heal which is thier main function (but do to cure poison I think?)
So even if I drain his mana curing my poison, it is a waste of time as his merixcs can still heal!
(shouldnt draining his mana be a vaible counter to the darn merics keeping his troops alive as you pound on them with axes?)
This also has major infulence on chaos building reinforcements to replace lost units in a battle and for rebuilding after an assalt as all units have a high mana cost except creepers (too weak) and giants (too slow to build) while order can continue to spam archers from gold only (even if we were allowed to drain there mana as a strategy) which will automatically run to the fight and shoot from max range with a simple 'all units attack' click.

I understand that healing used to use mana, and was patched - I suggest a compromise - let it use some but less than before - or let poison from dead use no mana.

Quote from uberman

ON the order greater than chaos topic; two things
1 walls vs turrets
2 mana use of poison ability and healing

miner Walls are far far better than the turrets.

A couple of walls (ideally exactly upon each other so the victim thinks its only 1, and will stay there thinking he's nearly through, little knowing there is a second wall underneath) can stop a large force for a few valuable seconds, while they are lined up in a predictable location, unable to touch the wizzards who know exactly where to stand to be max range and put up electric walls to hit the enemy. Yes, I do this myself as Order, and watch em weep baby.

Chaos gets a couple of turrets, which the onrushers totally ignore in the majority of situations.

In a rush-counter-rush (both armies go for the enemy statue) the turret is insignificant, a couple of walls will hold the enemy back enough to let you pawn his statue.


On the issue of poison and mana use; my pack of dead can drain the entire mana of 4-5 praying miners while spamming poison (their main function) but the healing merics dont use mana to heal which is thier main function (but do to cure poison I think?)
So even if I drain his mana curing my poison, it is a waste of time as his merixcs can still heal!
(shouldnt draining his mana be a vaible counter to the darn merics keeping his troops alive as you pound on them with axes?)
This also has major infulence on chaos building reinforcements to replace lost units in a battle and for rebuilding after an assalt as all units have a high mana cost except creepers (too weak) and giants (too slow to build) while order can continue to spam archers from gold only (even if we were allowed to drain there mana as a strategy) which will automatically run to the fight and shoot from max range with a simple 'all units attack' click.

I understand that healing used to use mana, and was patched - I suggest a compromise - let it use some but less than before - or let poison from dead use no mana.

Keep your word, Magikill needs to use tons of mana to cast spell, while Chaos spellcasters do not. Also, Marrowkai and Medusa have more health than Meric and Magikill( all M, lol.) Magikill's casting speed is slow while M&M are fast.Chaos have this opportunity, too.

Quote from Bladed Fire

Keep your word, Magikill needs to use tons of mana to cast spell, while Chaos spellcasters do not. Also, Marrowkai and Medusa have more health than Meric and Magikill( all M, lol.) Magikill's casting speed is slow while M&M are fast.Chaos have this opportunity, too.

I dont intend to lie :)
Its an internet forum about a game - lets keep it real :)

These things you raise are the counterpoints to my points about mana.
I dont know the facts about the spell casters using mana.

But walls > turrets, agreed?

Quote from uberman

I dont intend to lie :)
Its an internet forum about a game - lets keep it real :)

These things you raise are the counterpoints to my points about mana.
I dont know the facts about the spell casters using mana.

But walls > turrets, agreed?

Lol, yes, I think Chaos need to change their buildings.

Quote from uberman

Actually I have two accounts, my order account where I play only order and its a free account - well I actually paid membership, but cancelled the auto payment incase I didnt like the game (cos I dont want to forget), and instantly lost membership - which is a rip off having paid a month membership I expect a months membership. Also I have my chaos account, which I only ever play chaos.

Fact 1; my rating is consistently higher on the order account
Facr 2; I have significantly more played games (about 20% more) on my order account

Given fact 1 I have HARD EVIDENCE that for a similar skilled order player its easier to win more games (cos I am the same player)
Given fact 2 (that I played order more than chaos) why would I, in all honesty and reasonableness, be said to be chaos-bais?

I can't comment on whether you are biased to Chaos or not. Although you definitely seem to be turning a blind eye to some of the issues raised by me.

What I can say for certain is that you have the concept of "hard evidence" wrong.
You have experience playing both Order and Chaos, and having played both you find you win more often with Order.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps others experience the opposite thing? The evidence you present is yourself. You are a sample size of one. This statistic is a long, long, unbelievably long way from what most people define as "hard evidence".
There's a reason why studies on things such as medicine are done on more than just 10 people. Heck, 1000.

Quote from uberman

(fact 3; I have a graduate and post graduate degree and over 20 years experience in the working environment in a range of fields)
Therefore you are demonstrably wrong.

Please don't wave your "age and experience" around, your arguments are no more valid than another's if there are holes in it.

Quote from uberman

Oh, P.S. fact 4; Tec (who knows significantly more than me about the game) does provide an argument for my point about the similarity between crawlers and archer kiting - more hard evidence that you are wrong.
(Obviously, but for clarification; even if you disagree with the argument by Tec, thats irrelevent, as it proves a reasonable argument can be provided, and this proves you wrong and me right - that it can be reasonably argued there are similarities in the effect of lag between archers and crawlers used in advanced micro-management methods as I suggested)

Lag affects both players.
It's arguably a glitch in that it's not a desired function of the game.
The "lag affects one race more than the other" debate is irrelevant.

Quote from uberman

ON the order greater than chaos topic; two things
1 walls vs turrets
2 mana use of poison ability and healing

miner Walls are far far better than the turrets.

This is one of the few edges Order has. And considering the purpose of walls, which is to hold back an attacking force, it's not exactly a game-changer. This is with the exception of an opponent who is playing ..pretty much badly (this is what you reference below).

Quote from uberman

A couple of walls (ideally exactly upon each other so the victim thinks its only 1, and will stay there thinking he's nearly through, little knowing there is a second wall underneath) can stop a large force for a few valuable seconds, while they are lined up in a predictable location, unable to touch the wizzards who know exactly where to stand to be max range and put up electric walls to hit the enemy. Yes, I do this myself as Order, and watch em weep baby.

Chaos gets a couple of turrets, which the onrushers totally ignore in the majority of situations.

In a rush-counter-rush (both armies go for the enemy statue) the turret is insignificant, a couple of walls will hold the enemy back enough to let you pawn his statue.

Chaos is capable of rendering mages useless with an appropriate number of Medusa + Marrowkai.

And if both Order and Chaos have got to a point where they rush-counter-rush each other, then Chaos had played it terribly.

Quote from uberman

On the issue of poison and mana use; my pack of dead can drain the entire mana of 4-5 praying miners while spamming poison (their main function) but the healing merics dont use mana to heal which is thier main function (but do to cure poison I think?)
So even if I drain his mana curing my poison, it is a waste of time as his merixcs can still heal!
(shouldnt draining his mana be a vaible counter to the darn merics keeping his troops alive as you pound on them with axes?)
This also has major infulence on chaos building reinforcements to replace lost units in a battle and for rebuilding after an assalt as all units have a high mana cost except creepers (too weak) and giants (too slow to build) while order can continue to spam archers from gold only (even if we were allowed to drain there mana as a strategy) which will automatically run to the fight and shoot from max range with a simple 'all units attack' click.

I understand that healing used to use mana, and was patched - I suggest a compromise - let it use some but less than before - or let poison from dead use no mana.

You've ignored that Chaos get passive healing, for free, all throughout the game. This passive healing consumes no population or resources whatsoever.
Order's healing abilities require the consumption of space, resources, and time. Not to mention that Order's Merics are targetable whilst the passive healing of Chaos is just there.

Quote from uberman

Actually I have two accounts, my order account where I play only order and its a free account - well I actually paid membership, but cancelled the auto payment incase I didnt like the game (cos I dont want to forget), and instantly lost membership - which is a rip off having paid a month membership I expect a months membership. Also I have my chaos account, which I only ever play chaos.

Fact 1; my rating is consistently higher on the order account
Facr 2; I have significantly more played games (about 20% more) on my order account

Given fact 1 I have HARD EVIDENCE that for a similar skilled order player its easier to win more games (cos I am the same player)
Given fact 2 (that I played order more than chaos) why would I, in all honesty and reasonableness, be said to be chaos-bais?

Er....think about it dude. If you are doing better with Order, then you would naturally think Chaos is underpowered. This is why you are trying to portray it as NOT being overpowered. You are being totally illogical here. Of course you are going to defend Chaos...

Quote from uberman

There is indeed.
Now I ask you to edit your post and remove the ad hominem attack, (if you dont know what that means google it and learn something) or I will report you for implying I am stupid. I may be wrong but I am not stupid.
(fact 3; I have a graduate and post graduate degree and over 20 years experience in the working environment in a range of fields)
Therefore you are demonstrably wrong.
You may say something like 'There's a difference between presenting one side of an argument and just plain being wrong and/or badly informed' and get your point across without being personal.
FFS you attack my ideas, demonstrate I am wrong and I learn from it, or you can or you attack my stickmen and trash my statue if you can and I learn technique from it, but if you attack me I will put you down.

You make me laugh...There is nothing more defensive than someone who starts quoting this and that degree, 20 years of working experience...blah blah blah no one gives two shits. If you have to rest on your laurels in fields that have nothing to do with what we are talking about here, in order to make yourself feel better, then go ahead. But don't think it adds an ounce of credibility to any of your points. "I have a graduate degree, therefore I am incapable of saying anything stupid and you are demonstrably wrong" does not follow. Sorry. If you feel you have to post that you have a post-graduate degree to defend a point, it shows how "strong" your point was in the first place.

Moreover, are you so fragile that you have to threaten reporting someone on a random flash game forum for thinking they implied that you are stupid? I never implied you are stupid anyway. Those are your insecurities playing up. I said you were either biased and/or stupid. I left it open by use of a disjunctive that you may have just been biased. In actual fact, I was leaning towards you being biased, but by your last post I'm now starting to lean the other way. Grow a pair, seriously.

Quote from uberman

If your going to counter facts 1,2,3,4 above and below by your opinions and nothing else, then you lose, dude.
Because evidence > opinion. Evidence is even greater than your opinion, which obviously you give a special value to.

Oh, P.S. fact 4; Tec (who knows significantly more than me about the game) does provide an argument for my point about the similarity between crawlers and archer kiting - more hard evidence that you are wrong.
(Obviously, but for clarification; even if you disagree with the argument by Tec, thats irrelevent, as it proves a reasonable argument can be provided, and this proves you wrong and me right - that it can be reasonably argued there are similarities in the effect of lag between archers and crawlers used in advanced micro-management methods as I suggested)

P.P.S.
Nothing personal, retract your implication that I am stupid and I'll go easy on you. (Or, in other words; its back to a friendly debate, no hard feelings).
If your just a kid, sorry (although kids have less sensitivity to being wrong than adults, so in that case you dont even know why I am apologizing).
And respect for your rating, your obviously a much better player of stick than I am currently.

And now lets see your other arguments:

(1) "My evidence > your opinion"

What evidence? That you have played both races and now you are a guru on the balances of each race? That someone like Tec (who exudes the greatest amount of self-importance of anyone on here) backs you up when everyone already knows he's an Order-basher because he does not have the skill, experience or knowledge to use Chaos at the moment and will always back up anyone else who plays Chaos? That is your evidence? You're going to have to do better than that.

When I first started playing I would report what I found out to be possible imbalances, but always with the caveat that I hadn't done any extensive testing and I was probably wrong. You come here with comparatively very little experience and start lambasting other people's findings that have come about with a lot of extensive testing. If you can't take the heat, then don't dish it out.

When I post something about balance, I always do so with the backup of both extensive testing with other experienced players and discussions with those same players to see what they have found with their play experiences. I have also done mathematical analysis of how the game plays out to find out exactly what the game mechanics are. My "opinion", as you like to say, is far more backed up than you think and is far from just my own.

(2) "A reasonable argument can be provided, and this proves you wrong and me right".

If you want people to start respecting your opinions, then please stop making inane comments like this one. If the scientific community decided that the burden of scientific proof was satisfied by any "reasonable argument", the world would be a very scary place to live in.

Quote from MiamiBigAL

Er....think about it dude. If you are doing better with Order, then you would naturally think Chaos is underpowered. This is why you are trying to portray it as NOT being overpowered. You are being totally illogical here. Of course you are going to defend Chaos...

If you cant see the logic in 'a given player has a higher rating with order than chaos having played both therefore chaos is not overpowered' then I cant help you.
Right or wrong, its simple logic.

You make me laugh...

Good, at least there is some communication of value going on then.

There is nothing more defensive than someone who starts quoting this and that degree, 20 years of working experience...blah blah blah no one gives two shits. If you have to rest on your laurels in fields that have nothing to do with what we are talking about here, in order to make yourself feel better, then go ahead. But don't think it adds an ounce of credibility to any of your points. "I have a graduate degree, therefore I am incapable of saying anything stupid and you are demonstrably wrong" does not follow. Sorry. If you feel you have to post that you have a post-graduate degree to defend a point, it shows how "strong" your point was in the first place.

Bah!
I mentioned that only and specifically to counter 'I am stupid' it has no significance on the validity of my comments on stickwars. Your thinking there is so shallow its not funny.

Moreover, are you so fragile that you have to threaten reporting someone on a random flash game forum for thinking they implied that you are stupid? I never implied you are stupid anyway. Those are your insecurities playing up. I said you were either biased and/or stupid. I left it open by use of a disjunctive that you may have just been biased. In actual fact, I was leaning towards you being biased, but by your last post I'm now starting to lean the other way. Grow a pair, seriously.

I take it from this that you did not and do not intend to assert that I am stupid. I conceed that you didnt actually assert that I am stupid.

And now lets see your other arguments:

(1) "My evidence > your opinion"

What evidence? That you have played both races and now you are a guru on the balances of each race? That someone like Tec (who exudes the greatest amount of self-importance of anyone on here) backs you up when everyone already knows he's an Order-basher because he does not have the skill, experience or knowledge to use Chaos at the moment and will always back up anyone else who plays Chaos? That is your evidence? You're going to have to do better than that.

When I first started playing I would report what I found out to be possible imbalances, but always with the caveat that I hadn't done any extensive testing and I was probably wrong. You come here with comparatively very little experience and start lambasting other people's findings that have come about with a lot of extensive testing. If you can't take the heat, then don't dish it out.

When I post something about balance, I always do so with the backup of both extensive testing with other experienced players and discussions with those same players to see what they have found with their play experiences. I have also done mathematical analysis of how the game plays out to find out exactly what the game mechanics are. My "opinion", as you like to say, is far more backed up than you think and is far from just my own.

(2) "A reasonable argument can be provided, and this proves you wrong and me right".

If you want people to start respecting your opinions, then please stop making inane comments like this one. If the scientific community decided that the burden of scientific proof was satisfied by any "reasonable argument", the world would be a very scary place to live in.

The point here is that
my position; arguably (i.e. a reasonable argument exist that) ...
yours; its not arguable (i.e. no reasonable argument can be provided)

As a scientist we use peer review - its a normal and unavoidable part of scientific development, and does not make the world any more scarry. My reference to Tec is not a flawed appeal to authority, dont try suggest it is.

The evidence is Tec's argument.
The conclusion from that evidence is that Tec's argument is reasonable and has been provided, thus refuting your position that (no reasonable argument can be provided) regardless of the validity of the argument. Attacking Tec is at best simply irrelevent, at worst nothing more than ad hom.

Again, if you dont understand the structure of the argument I presented here then I cant help you.

So, I suggest we stop bickering, and return to the actual point of the thread. If you want to have 'the last say' then do a response post to which I wont respond unless you ask me a specific question or make any silly comments.
Fair enough?

Quote from uberman

If you cant see the logic in 'a given player has a higher rating with order than chaos having played both therefore chaos is not overpowered' then I cant help you.
Right or wrong, its simple logic.

That was not your argument. Your argument is that since you do better with order, you can use that as evidence to show that you are NOT BIASED when defending chaos against everyone else's assertions that it is overpowered. Unless your whole argument depends solely on the fact that you have played 20% more games as Order in which case I think you are wasting everyone else's time if you are relying solely on that one fact.

You ask why you would be chaos-biased. Isn't it obvious? It is because you comparatively suck with Chaos that you think it is underpowered. If you were GOOD with Chaos, you would then be more likely to believe it is overpowered. That is the whole point of the discussion on this thread unless you are now starting something else. How can you argue that you are not biased in your assertion that chaos is underpowered? If you fail to see the logic in this, then I can't help you.

Quote from uberman

Good, at least there is some communication of value going on then.

Too bad that is the only value from what you said.

Quote from uberman

Bah!
I mentioned that only and specifically to counter 'I am stupid' it has no significance on the validity of my comments on stickwars. Your thinking there is so shallow its not funny.

You mentioned it because you were being defensive and everyone knows it. And simply dismissing my thinking of being "shallow and not funny" is just even more evidence. I obviously hit home on a heart string, so I will leave it at that.

Quote from uberman

I take it from this that you did not and do not intend to assert that I am stupid. I conceed that you didnt actually assert that I am stupid.

Try reading it again. If you can't understand what I did clearly intend to assert like I am sure everyone else did then you are probably better off considering your fragile psychology.

And please learn to spell. I let the last 4 spelling mistakes slide, but if you were a post-graduate then I am shocked that you managed to get through your degree with this level of spelling ability. It's concede, not "conceed". Principle (in that last context) and not "principal". Scary, not "scarry"....and many more in just two posts I've read. I am not a grammar Nazi but please have some respect for the English language. If you are dyslexic then I apologize.

Quote from uberman

The point here is that
my position; arguably (i.e. a reasonable argument exist that) ...
yours; its not arguable (i.e. no reasonable argument can be provided)

As a scientist we use peer review - its a normal and unavoidable part of scientific development, and does not make the world any more scarry. My reference to Tec is not a flawed appeal to authority, dont try suggest it is.

The evidence is Tec's argument.
The conclusion from that evidence is that Tec's argument is reasonable and has been provided, thus refuting your position that (no reasonable argument can be provided) regardless of the validity of the argument. Attacking Tec is at best simply irrelevent, at worst nothing more than ad hom.

Again, if you dont understand the structure of the argument I presented here then I cant help you.

So, I suggest we stop bickering, and return to the actual point of the thread. If you want to have 'the last say' then do a response post to which I wont respond unless you ask me a specific question or make any silly comments.
Fair enough?

There's a difference between argument (you and tec) and reasonable argument (everyone else). I do not think the crawler-animation cancel is a reasonable argument. Animation-cancel was severely nerfed after the patch to the point it is possibly even detrimental to crawlers (it's certainly not advantageous to other units). I have tested crawler-animation with the best animation-canceller (captaincorps) after the update and the speed increase is virtually 0 if not 0. One mistake, which is extremely easy to make, and you have severely destroyed your advantage and shifted it in Order's favour.

Moreover, if you want to argue that attacking a swordwrath 1 on 1 with alternating crawlers is advanced-micro tactics, then god help you. Any decent player switches target as soon as you try to run away and you end up with just cutting your DPS potential by half. So no, that is not a reasonable argument. If there's lag, the ability to switch targets is affected just as badly as your ability to run away. However, with the archer, a laggy swordsman/spearton is still running after you at the same speed (IRRESPECTIVE OF LAG), so no....you cannot reasonably argue the effect of lag on a crawler is comparable to the effect of lag on an archer that simply cannot shoot and retreat effectively at all when it is laggy.

You guys were having such a nice semi-intelligent conversation. I figured best not ruin it with those two posts you made. So I removed them. While I don't believe Uberman is a scientist, a teacher of science is a possibility.
Also, Miami, your team of experienced players is very likely to consist of Yourself, Rummaker, and CaptainCorps, who are all in the same clan, that game from the same game (Colony) last time I checked. So your "great amount of research" can be, and is, considered biased.
The strain on the Archidon, when lagging when a Swordwrath is chasing it is great. We can all agree.
Now, what about the strain on crawlers, to dodge the arrows, that fly past them, while animation canceling the running away Archidon? I consider that greater. While you may say, it gives no bonus, it gives a bonus you don't seem to understand, and from the game that you came from, it's understandable.

If you are dyslexic then I apologize.

apology accepted.

As I suggested, I have given you 'the last word' because its important to some people that they have 'the last word' and dont leave points unadressed. As an adult it is trivial to me.
Now, lets try keep our future exchanges to the contents or mechanics of the game, rather than ad hom attacks and unplesent comments about people rather than the merrit of people's ideas, agreed?