Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore" [message #253843 is a reply to message #253819] |
Fri, 13 April 2007 06:25 |
|
m1a1_abrams
Messages: 375 Registered: August 2003
Karma:
|
Commander |
|
|
Really, Spoony is talking about something different to what people are usually called a point whore over (at least in my experience).
If someone calls you a point whore for keeping the enemy in their base with tanks, after you won the advantage in the initial skirmishes... they're nuts. What do they want you to do, lay off them for a while, so that they have a better shot of winning?
However, even when you're sieging with tanks, you can be too conservative about it. IMO, you should always be looking for an opening to win the game outright, rather than a points victory. It might be the case that there is never an opening, so you can't rush in to hit an unrepaired building, but that's different. It's very annoying though, when you see a wide open opportunity to move in closer and take out a structure, but your tanks won't move, happily blasting away at the one being repaired.
You might argue that camping the closest building is less risky than moving further in, but if all your best players are up front all game, you're giving the enemy more time to sneak in the back way and steal your win. It's different when it's near the end of a very close game, but otherwise, I often suspect tank campers won't rush in, because they have a fragile points lead on their teammates.
Edit: Goztow, I was talking about people on my own team, so I can't kill them.
And Spoony, the enemy may well be even less skilled than the supposed point whore, but I don't think that fact grants him immunity to criticism. If you're a bad team player, you're a bad team player.
[Updated on: Fri, 13 April 2007 06:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Spoony on Fri, 13 April 2007 04:14
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Goztow on Fri, 13 April 2007 04:25
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Crimson on Fri, 13 April 2007 05:06
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Tunaman on Fri, 13 April 2007 05:24
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Spoony on Fri, 13 April 2007 05:28
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Goztow on Fri, 13 April 2007 06:12
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Spoony on Fri, 13 April 2007 06:15
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: BlueThen on Fri, 13 April 2007 11:41
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: NukeIt15 on Fri, 13 April 2007 06:08
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Spoony on Fri, 13 April 2007 06:29
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: jnz on Fri, 13 April 2007 06:39
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: OWA on Fri, 13 April 2007 09:15
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Tunaman on Fri, 13 April 2007 09:32
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: Spoony on Sat, 14 April 2007 09:59
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: JohnDoe on Sat, 14 April 2007 06:31
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
By: hsq91 on Sat, 14 April 2007 11:21
|
|
|
Re: An opinion piece - "Pointwhore"
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Dec 18 06:26:24 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01084 seconds
|