Many people talk down on Deathmatch as if "it doesn't matter" or say things like "it's not as competitive as classic".

One has to look at Deathmatch as a completely different game from classic. Many strategies in classic that work will not work in Deathmatch.

In classic how good a player is, is equal, if not, more dependent on how they manage their economy rather than how they manage their units and the order they take out their opponents units. But in Deathmatch it is less dependent on the economy but more dependent on unit management. Players who are good at controlling their units excel at DM, while others who are poor at unit management tend to fail at it and talk down on the game mode.

I personally like Deathmatch more than classic mainly because there is less pointless waiting due to the economy building. I also enjoy it more because I usually play Chaos or Elemental and when I play against Order, majority of the people TRY to turtle and delay my victory. In classic they might be able to drag the match out to 8 minutes maybe more but in DM it's easier to get rid of an inferior opponent. In short I can get more matches out in the same amount of time.

I would like to see who the community thinks are the best DM players. top 5's 10's 20's doesn't matter.

My list:

1. ArchyBeatz
2. CookHeisenberg
3. ChefHeisenberg
4. HeisenbergMeth
5. WalterWhite1

Chaos and Elementals are op in DM, 'nuff said.

LMFAO HE JUST LISTED HIS OWN ALTS

Tisk tisk tisk

No one cares about DM, it's unbalanced.

People hate it cause - It is unbalanced, you need no early game macro and little game knowledge to win, and strategy takes little place.

Quote from spino

People hate it cause - It is unbalanced, you need no early game macro and little game knowledge to win, and strategy takes little place.

In my experiences with DM | Chaos>Elemental | Elemental>Order | Order>Chaos | Seems pretty balanced to me it's a common triangle of power

What separates a 2200 DM Ele player from a 1600 DM Ele player? 2100 Order player from an 1800 player?

It's a difference in skill. While in classic you might need early game macro to create a separation between you in your opponent, you need to find another tactic to separate yourself in DM. Too many people try the same strategies from classic, lose and blame it on how unbalanced the game it. I'm starting to see the same excuse seep into classic as well. The game will never be perfectly balanced but DM is close enough to show separation between a good player and a bad one.

The fact that the 100 is splatted with players of every empire only proves my point further.

Maybe some players are only good at controlling a few units instead of a larger amount. The only who can control a large amount of units at once are better at DM?

See it for what it is.

Unbalanced, no game knowledge required (w/o exploration of the game), shit mu. Also, archy alts are lolsy.

"Too many people try the same strategies from classic, lose and blame it on how unbalanced the game it." tf

Quote from ArchyBeatz

Too many people try the same strategies from classic, lose and blame it on how unbalanced the game it. I'm starting to see the same excuse seep into classic as well.

He's right you know. I always try to go AM in DM with order, but it never seems to work.

Quote from Zomar

He's right you know. I always try to go AM in DM with order, but it never seems to work.

MMS doesn't seem to work either kappa

LMFAO srsly I am curious how you get unbanned with this state

1) Deathmatch is pay to win(Leaderboard top 10 are almost all owned by membership players for two years)
2) Order player never gets to top 3 (or even 2400+ )
3) It does not require much building skill and macro(the early game you have tons of resources to spend)

4) People who are good in dm may be a noob in classic(champ344, sparta1901 <- reached 2.4k+ in dm while only 2k-2.1k in classic)
In reverse, people who are good in classic are always not bad in dm (Wyzdm , PleaseBeGentle, Waseem, Khan0944, chaos0176 ,all reached top 10 in both classic and dm)

5) You are super funny(or absurd??)

Quote from ArchyBeatz

In my experiences with DM | Chaos>Elemental | Elemental>Order | Order>Chaos | Seems pretty balanced to me it's a common triangle of power

Assuming that this is true, then wouldnt f2p players be disadvantaged against the members who have access to elementals, and be unable to switch to counter them in the "balance"?

Also, triangles of power, while "balanced," are based on luck, and therefore not truly competitive.

Quote from jerrytt

Assuming that this is true, then wouldnt f2p players be disadvantaged against the members who have access to elementals, and be unable to switch to counter them in the "balance"?

Also, triangles of power, while "balanced," are based on luck, and therefore not truly competitive.

When has luck ever been balanced? Oh my archer has a 69% chance to fire the arrow at the enemy, but the other 31% will backfire on me. That's not balanced, same with dm. 33.3% for each empire, this is how I see it.

order > chaos < elementals.

Chaos beats up all. Unless the chaos player is dumb, then an ele player may occasionally win.

The second I see an order only player in number 1 in dm, I will quit the game, because I know it's impossible. (which means it's unbalanced :D).

order > chaos < elementals.

So apparently Order and Ele are stronger than Chaos. That adds a tick to fail when you made a bad joke on stars.

I never liked Dm because it took away the micro battles for early game that i love

Quote from DragonArcherz

order > chaos < elementals.

So apparently Order and Ele are stronger than Chaos. That adds a tick to fail when you made a bad joke on stars.

I believe if it's like this:

order > chaos < elementals,

it means order is less than chaos, chaos is more than elementals?

Pretty sure that's how it works.