First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Attack or Defence?
203 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / philippines
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
Good Offence starts from Good Defence
2229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / the place. . .
Offline
Posted 9/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:

You don't need a good defense when you already blew everything up.


True enough. . . but a good defense offers a means to retaliate against the offense. . . As defense hinders offense, a good defense would no doubt last longer against a good offense, than say, another good offense would. . . So if that everything that was blown up had a good defense to begin with, I think it would have just as high a chance at victory as the offense would. . . or something like that. . .

Of course if everything was already blown up, then you really wouldn't need a good defense. . .

Posted 9/10/08
defence and when I get the chance I attack
Posted 9/10/08
attack... kill kill kill
Posted 9/10/08

k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

You don't need a good defense when you already blew everything up.


True enough. . . but a good defense offers a means to retaliate against the offense. . . As defense hinders offense, a good defense would no doubt last longer against a good offense, than say, another good offense would. . . So if that everything that was blown up had a good defense to begin with, I think it would have just as high a chance at victory as the offense would. . . or something like that. . .

Of course if everything was already blown up, then you really wouldn't need a good defense. . .



The only reason a good defense would last longer then a good offense is because the person on offense would be to busy winning. This isn't real life, in video games, 90% of the time defense means losing. (Unless the person on offense is retarded, in which you shouldn't be doing a defense in the first place...)
2634 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/08 , edited 9/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:


k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

You don't need a good defense when you already blew everything up.


True enough. . . but a good defense offers a means to retaliate against the offense. . . As defense hinders offense, a good defense would no doubt last longer against a good offense, than say, another good offense would. . . So if that everything that was blown up had a good defense to begin with, I think it would have just as high a chance at victory as the offense would. . . or something like that. . .

Of course if everything was already blown up, then you really wouldn't need a good defense. . .



The only reason a good defense would last longer then a good offense is because the person on offense would be to busy winning. This isn't real life, in video games, 90% of the time defense means losing. (Unless the person on offense is retarded, in which you shouldn't be doing a defense in the first place...)


LOL!! Even in MMOs higher defense is retarded because you use more potions and it takes longer to kill. If you have a higher attack you can kill weaker enemies faster than a person with a high defense could kill a higher level enemy.

Its like a blade in Flyff. You kill less enemies at once than a knight but you can even it out by killing enemies faster.

Also one hitting someone is funnier than hitting someone 10 times. Its like would you rather shoot someone in the legs and arms or would you rather shoot them in the head/body?


Cakeman wrote:

My personal preference:

For MMORPG

Offense = faster grind/leveling. Start with attack then stack defense after level caps.

For fighting game

Start with defense to get a read on opponent's movements/pattern/whatever. Then attack.


You'd rather let Steve Fox start a combo and completely own you than to attack first? Btw Steve has a couple combos that are endless.
Posted 9/10/08

Incontrovertible wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

You don't need a good defense when you already blew everything up.


True enough. . . but a good defense offers a means to retaliate against the offense. . . As defense hinders offense, a good defense would no doubt last longer against a good offense, than say, another good offense would. . . So if that everything that was blown up had a good defense to begin with, I think it would have just as high a chance at victory as the offense would. . . or something like that. . .

Of course if everything was already blown up, then you really wouldn't need a good defense. . .



The only reason a good defense would last longer then a good offense is because the person on offense would be to busy winning. This isn't real life, in video games, 90% of the time defense means losing. (Unless the person on offense is retarded, in which you shouldn't be doing a defense in the first place...)


LOL!! Even in MMOs higher defense is retarded because you use more potions and it takes longer to kill. If you have a higher attack you can kill weaker enemies faster than a person with a high defense could kill a higher level enemy.

Its like a blade in Flyff. You kill less enemies at once than a knight but you can even it out by killing enemies faster.

Also one hitting someone is funnier than hitting someone 10 times. Its like would you rather shoot someone in the legs and arms or would you rather shoot them in the head/body?


Cakeman wrote:

My personal preference:

For MMORPG

Offense = faster grind/leveling. Start with attack then stack defense after level caps.

For fighting game

Start with defense to get a read on opponent's movements/pattern/whatever. Then attack.


You'd rather let Steve Fox start a combo and completely own you than to attack first? Btw Steve has a couple combos that are endless.

In MMO's defense (Tank builds mostly) are utter shit for PVP lulz.
558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
Gank gank GANK!!!
I guarantee the person who attacks first will win if they don't suck. Screw patterns and start with your own!
No, seriously, I play a mage in WoW. If I see a rogue just sitting there unstealthed, you better believe I'm gonna gank him. He'd do the exact same to me.
2229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / the place. . .
Offline
Posted 9/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:

The only reason a good defense would last longer then a good offense is because the person on offense would be to busy winning. This isn't real life, in video games, 90% of the time defense means losing. (Unless the person on offense is retarded, in which you shouldn't be doing a defense in the first place...)


hmmm. . . It seems we have different game genres in mind. . . Your theory seems more based around a shooting type of game, where your only defense may or may not be a protective vest, or just running away until you find a decent weapon. . . or some massively multiplayer online rpg games. . . Mine is focused more on some rpgs or some fighters. . . For example, in a fighting game a person with a good offense could just as easily win as the person with good defense. . . because the person with good defense knows how to defend attacks well, they wouldn't have to worry about taking too many hits. . . The person with good offense, not being good with defense (we can't assume this person is good with defense also, because this thread is Attack or Defense) wouldn't be able to defend themself as well against the person with good defense. . . Which leads me back to my first post. . . "A good offense starts with a good defense". . . This is because without a good defense, a good offense can't effectively take the defensive. . . Defense contradicts offense, not the other way around (in reality and games). . . or something along those lines. . .

I noticed your first post in this thread was a quote conflicting mine. . . I wasn't the first person to favor defense over offense, yet you targeted me. . . hmmmm. . .
Posted 9/10/08

k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

The only reason a good defense would last longer then a good offense is because the person on offense would be to busy winning. This isn't real life, in video games, 90% of the time defense means losing. (Unless the person on offense is retarded, in which you shouldn't be doing a defense in the first place...)


hmmm. . . It seems we have different game genres in mind. . . Your theory seems more based around a shooting type of game, where your only defense may or may not be a protective vest, or just running away until you find a decent weapon. . . or some massively multiplayer online rpg games. . . Mine is focused more on some rpgs or some fighters. . . For example, in a fighting game a person with a good offense could just as easily win as the person with good defense. . . because the person with good defense knows how to defend attacks well, they wouldn't have to worry about taking too many hits. . . The person with good offense, not being good with defense (we can't assume this person is good with defense also, because this thread is Attack or Defense) wouldn't be able to defend themself as well against the person with good defense. . . Which leads me back to my first post. . . "A good offense starts with a good defense". . . This is because without a good defense, a good offense can't effectively take the defensive. . . Defense contradicts offense, not the other way around (in reality and games). . . or something along those lines. . .

I noticed your first post in this thread was a quote conflicting mine. . . I wasn't the first person to favor defense over offense, yet you targeted me. . . hmmmm. . .


Fighting game - A person has a good defense, and a person has a good offense. Also, the good defense guys offense sucks, and the person with a good offense has a crappy defense. In a game like street fighter, you get your guard broken. In a game like Soul Caliber, block to much and you'll get grabbed. Parry to much and you'll get grabbed. And, sense you yourself said this is defense OR offense only, the person with a defense has no offense so is only, once again, prolonging his path to a inevitable defeat.

RPG - You can strategically attack a boss, or you can grind your ass off then defend until the boss gets bored and walks away, your choice.
7326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Home
Offline
Posted 9/10/08
for some reason i always build up attack.........attacking is my fav thing to do...defence takes to long
2229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / the place. . .
Offline
Posted 9/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:

Fighting game - A person has a good defense, and a person has a good offense. Also, the good defense guys offense sucks, and the person with a good offense has a crappy defense. In a game like street fighter, you get your guard broken. In a game like Soul Caliber, block to much and you'll get grabbed. Parry to much and you'll get grabbed. And, sense you yourself said this is defense OR offense only, the person with a defense has no offense so is only, once again, prolonging his path to a inevitable defeat.

RPG - You can strategically attack a boss, or you can grind your ass off then defend until the boss gets bored and walks away, your choice.


You've misread something. . . I never said this is "defense OR offense only." I wrote "we can't assume this person is good with defense also, because this thread is Attack or Defense."

I think your underestimating good defense. . . In a fighting game a person with good defense is good because they can predict how their opponent's combo will end. . . Parrying a throw is no problem for them. . . They would know roughly when their guard will break. . . They will know oppurtunities to attack their opponent from their opponent's recovery time after a combo. . . They would be profficient with countering. . .
But the a similar thing could be said about a good offense. . . They would knnow when to stop a combo. . . They would know how to lure their opponent into a bad position. . . etc. . . but the person with good defense would be expecting that because there are only so many moves available for any given character. . .

I've never played an rpg where the boss flees from battle. . .
In an rpg you would strategically attack an enemy regardless of your attack or defense rating. . . just with a higher defense, you don't need to worry about dying so much. . . Good offense is more for doing something quickly, whereas good defense is more about effeciency imo. . . or so it goes. . .
Posted 9/10/08

k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

Fighting game - A person has a good defense, and a person has a good offense. Also, the good defense guys offense sucks, and the person with a good offense has a crappy defense. In a game like street fighter, you get your guard broken. In a game like Soul Caliber, block to much and you'll get grabbed. Parry to much and you'll get grabbed. And, sense you yourself said this is defense OR offense only, the person with a defense has no offense so is only, once again, prolonging his path to a inevitable defeat.

RPG - You can strategically attack a boss, or you can grind your ass off then defend until the boss gets bored and walks away, your choice.


You've misread something. . . I never said this is "defense OR offense only." I wrote "we can't assume this person is good with defense also, because this thread is Attack or Defense."

I think your underestimating good defense. . . In a fighting game a person with good defense is good because they can predict how their opponent's combo will end. . . Parrying a throw is no problem for them. . . They would know roughly when their guard will break. . . They will know oppurtunities to attack their opponent from their opponent's recovery time after a combo. . . They would be profficient with countering. . .
But the a similar thing could be said about a good offense. . . They would knnow when to stop a combo. . . They would know how to lure their opponent into a bad position. . . etc. . . but the person with good defense would be expecting that because there are only so many moves available for any given character. . .

I've never played an rpg where the boss flees from battle. . .
In an rpg you would strategically attack an enemy regardless of your attack or defense rating. . . just with a higher defense, you don't need to worry about dying so much. . . Good offense is more for doing something quickly, whereas good defense is more about effeciency imo. . . or so it goes. . .


Seeing as we can't assume a person with a good offense can have good defense, the inverse is true. Once a person parrys, he will not have good enough combo's to finish it up. Parrying is also a offensive technique (if not use randomly used when sitting around) Rush in parry to make them studder then combo combo combo.

In a RPG def stats =/= def and there was a obvious sarcastic tone to what I was saying...

The only time you need a good defense is when your getting your ass kicked because your offense sucked

IE the nub getting zerg rushed.
2229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / the place. . .
Offline
Posted 9/10/08

dmitsuki wrote:

Seeing as we can't assume a person with a good offense can have good defense, the inverse is true. Once a person parrys, he will not have good enough combo's to finish it up. Parrying is also a offensive technique (if not use randomly used when sitting around) Rush in parry to make them studder then combo combo combo.

In a RPG def stats =/= def and there was a obvious sarcastic tone to what I was saying...

The only time you need a good defense is when your getting your ass kicked because your offense sucked

IE the nub getting zerg rushed.


Considering the thread is named Attack or Defence, I think it's very safe to assume the person with good offense won't have good defense because defense and offense are opposing forces. . . If the person with good offense did indeed have good defense as well, then I think this thread would bear a different name. . .

Once again, because any given character will have so many moves, it depends on the game and available moves of the character (not all games use the same gameplay mechanics ), to determine whether or not they can connect a decent combo on a recently parried opponent. . .

I don't understand when you wrote. . .
"Once a person parrys, he will not have good enough combo's to finish it up. Parrying is also a offensive technique (if not use randomly used when sitting around) Rush in parry to make them studder then combo combo combo. "

To me, it looks like contradicting sentences. . . First you say, Once a person parries, they won't have good enough comboes to finish it up. Then you say Rush in parry to make them stagger(?) then combo combo combo. . . but according to you, once a person parries, they won't have good enough comboes to finish it up. . .

Regarding the zerg rush example. . . I wrote a few posts ago that my theory is revolves more around some rpgs and some fighters. . . So it's not strange for there to be exceptions. . .
Posted 9/10/08

k1ngkam1kaze wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

Seeing as we can't assume a person with a good offense can have good defense, the inverse is true. Once a person parrys, he will not have good enough combo's to finish it up. Parrying is also a offensive technique (if not use randomly used when sitting around) Rush in parry to make them studder then combo combo combo.

In a RPG def stats =/= def and there was a obvious sarcastic tone to what I was saying...

The only time you need a good defense is when your getting your ass kicked because your offense sucked

IE the nub getting zerg rushed.


Considering the thread is named Attack or Defence, I think it's very safe to assume the person with good offense won't have good defense because defense and offense are opposing forces. . . If the person with good offense did indeed have good defense as well, then I think this thread would bear a different name. . .

Once again, because any given character will have so many moves, it depends on the game and available moves of the character (not all games use the same gameplay mechanics ), to determine whether or not they can connect a decent combo on a recently parried opponent. . .

I don't understand when you wrote. . .
"Once a person parrys, he will not have good enough combo's to finish it up. Parrying is also a offensive technique (if not use randomly used when sitting around) Rush in parry to make them studder then combo combo combo. "

To me, it looks like contradicting sentences. . . First you say, Once a person parries, they won't have good enough comboes to finish it up. Then you say Rush in parry to make them stagger(?) then combo combo combo. . . but according to you, once a person parries, they won't have good enough comboes to finish it up. . .

Regarding the zerg rush example. . . I wrote a few posts ago that my theory is revolves more around some rpgs and some fighters. . . So it's not strange for there to be exceptions. . .


A person with ONLY defense who would use a parry DEFENSIVELY wouldn't have combo's to finish up his parry. A person who use's it OFFENSIVELY will follow it with COMBO'S and lulz RAEP his opponent.

Also, seeing as you take EVERYTHING I type to heart and literal, I will no longer include fun little statements in any post I ever generate towards you again ever, such as IE teh nub getting zerg rushed.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.