Suikoden United and Infamous Kraalesque Old Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Attack or Defense?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Game & Anime Discussion Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GallantWarriorGeddoe




Joined: 07 May 2006
Post Count: 215
Location: Pale Plains
3297 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In RPGs I definitley go for brute force over defense. Killing the monsters quickers means you take less or no damage anyways so there isn't tha much of a point in raising your defense over attack.

In something like an ROTK gam I prefer a more balanced approach. I like to build up my forces and make sure I have plenty of supplies before I attack. So in more of a real time strategy I usually sart off on the defensive and go on the offensive when I think I'm ready.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
RexKwonDo

RKD's TKO


Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Post Count: 1020
Location: Valignano
1665516 Potch
650 Soldiers
175 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yeah I have to agree that I go for brute strength over anything else, especially in turn-based RPGs. Defense helps, but it isn't really as necessary if you can just one shot everything.
_________________
My beautiful sigs disappeared and have been replaced with these feeble words to attempt to fill the void.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sailor Sexy

Mikan weeps for Brady


Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Post Count: 2150
Location: Blight's Bay
246380 Potch
175 Soldiers
50 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

In nearly every game I've played, strength is the deciding factor. If you can add in speed, that makes it a sure win. As long as I have just enough defense to take a hit, and have someone with me who can stand as a dedicated healer, then a couple high attack, low defense characters are better than a whole group of high defense, low attack people. I've always fared better ending a confrontation quickly with an overwhelming show of force than by slowly trying to whittle away their defenses. Plus, it seems that enemies are better able to break defenses than they are to handle high offense.
_________________


~Uguu!~
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Offensive. In nearly every game, no matter how strong your defense, if your offense stinks, you won't win (with the only real possible exceptions being sports games).

In RPG's, if you can run through an enemy, you can typically weather the attack.

In fighting games, I'm all about running an opponent down. In most games, there is a guard penalty for those who want to turtle up, and I usually favor characters who are fast enough and have enough range to try to limit the penalty for making a mistake.

In shooters, I absolutely hate the waiting game (like you see with sniper rifles). I'm the guy who typically runs in with an assault rifle blazing, dying quickly, and doing it again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
eXistence of Fly

Pointy Sticks & Ponies!


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4191
Location: Obel
1151694 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Amyral wrote:
Offensive. In nearly every game, no matter how strong your defense, if your offense stinks, you won't win (with the only real possible exceptions being sports games).


In Dawn of War you can have 1 unit of offense with the rest being defense and win the game.

In Warcraft 3 towering is a form of defensive maneuver, so once again you can have one unit of offense and simply set up a defensive perimeter to win.

Hell in Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri the two factions which can net you the strongest factions easily are the hippies and the Scientists, whereas the military factions usually fall on their faces past the first assault.

So whether or not you can win in any game simply with offense is incorrect, RTS' are designed so that defense and offense are both viable strategies so you don't have a bunch of idiots on steroids running around going hax. You actually have to use some level of thought to time your attacks and so a defense is a must unless you want a 5 second game.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

eXistence of Fly wrote:
So whether or not you can win in any game simply with offense is incorrect, RTS' are designed so that defense and offense are both viable strategies so you don't have a bunch of idiots on steroids running around going hax. You actually have to use some level of thought to time your attacks and so a defense is a must unless you want a 5 second game.


If that towering thing is anything like it is in Starcraft (in which it's just a gradually expanding ring of towers), they're using them as an offensive strategy, just in a roundabout way.

And, granted, RTS aren't my biggest genre, but in every one I've played, a strong defense will eventually fall, so you still had to have an offensive strategy at some point.

Of course, it also happens due to the fact that I said nearly every game, and not every game, so a few exceptions don't really change that for me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Jorge Prima

La Raza de Héroes y Protectores de Osito


Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Post Count: 3919
Location: Avec Monsieur Angelus
938390 Potch
1120 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well if I was to choose, I would say high attack because it’s just fun to overkill enemies. I am also very lazy and I find it hell of a lot easier to just bombard my party members with healing potions. Of course it really depends on the game and what it lets you get away with. Some games like Final Fantasy, it’s almost impossible to not take care of your defense.
_________________

J et J

Angelus on Aftershave wrote:
But it stings SO GOOD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
eXistence of Fly

Pointy Sticks & Ponies!


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4191
Location: Obel
1151694 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Amyral wrote:

If that towering thing is anything like it is in Starcraft (in which it's just a gradually expanding ring of towers), they're using them as an offensive strategy, just in a roundabout way.


They use them in order to section off an area for harassment so that the Hero has a designated safe zone to retreat to. That is using the towers as a secondary defensive perimeter.

Quote:
And, granted, RTS aren't my biggest genre, but in every one I've played, a strong defense will eventually fall, so you still had to have an offensive strategy at some point.


Your opposition must suck then. The majority of RTS outcomes is determined by map control and timing, a strong defense can buy enough time for the defender to then counterattack with a minimal force and force the attacker to then react instead of act and turn the tide of battle towards the defenders favour. The point isn't playing 100% defense or offense since both inevitably are used, the point is that with majority defense and minority offense it is quite easy to be victorious, whereas you said it wasn't and you won't win.

Quote:
Of course, it also happens due to the fact that I said nearly every game, and not every game, so a few exceptions don't really change that for me.


The entire genre can be won in a defensive mindset, you listed 'Sports' as the onyl real exception which obviously indicates that RTS the majority of wins are done via pure offense, when they are not. I was merely pointing out what i perceive to be a flaw in your logic concerning exceptions to the rule in regards to RTS' is all. It is not meant to change your ideas about them or anything but simply challenge the validity of certain generalised claims is all.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

eXistence of Fly wrote:
Your opposition must suck then. The majority of RTS outcomes is determined by map control and timing, a strong defense can buy enough time for the defender to then counterattack with a minimal force and force the attacker to then react instead of act and turn the tide of battle towards the defenders favour.


Quite the opposite, actually, and I would ask that you do not make rash generalization about those I play with, as you have no basis for those claims.

If you have a well-organized offense and decent defense, you can easily overcome most defenses. The best example I can think of this is in Starcraft, as that's the one I have the best experience, and the Zerg. If you try to wait out a Terran or Protoss opponent with a Zerg, you're likely to be sunk. Your best strategy is to have a solid swarm of units, as well as a well varied swarm, to overcome units that are stronger and harder to kill than your own.

eXistence of Fly wrote:
The point isn't playing 100% defense or offense since both inevitably are used, the point is that with majority defense and minority offense it is quite easy to be victorious, whereas you said it wasn't and you won't win.


I did not say that, you've altered what I said. I said if you have a strong defense and bad offense, you won't win in most games. I fail to see how having a unit strong enough to cause major damage on a counter-attack constitutes having a bad offense.

eXistence of Fly wrote:
The entire genre can be won in a defensive mindset, you listed 'Sports' as the onyl real exception which obviously indicates that RTS the majority of wins are done via pure offense, when they are not. I was merely pointing out what i perceive to be a flaw in your logic concerning exceptions to the rule in regards to RTS' is all. It is not meant to change your ideas about them or anything but simply challenge the validity of certain generalised claims is all.


Again, I did not state that you would win having nothing but offense, I said if you had no offense (or a flat-out bad offense), you would lose at nearly every game. You've altered that. If you want to challenge the validity of generalized claims, be my guest, but you weren't really addressing my statement.

Sports is an exception because, in many sports, it's possible to score on defense. In football, you can directly score. In basketball, if you can consistently stop your opponent once they get the ball, such as in the half court, you're going to have the ball most of the game and, as such, are likely to score more, even if your offense is terrible, due to the nature of those games. The same goes for many other different sports, with a few notable exceptions for those that don't have a set defense (such as extreme sports, tennis, golf, etc) and those that don't have any scoring on defense (such as baseball).

But if it makes you feel better, I'll add RTS to that exception.


Last edited by Amyral on Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Rune hunter




Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I go for defence. For example in an RPG you may have high offensive skills and you may wither the HP of the monsters to near critical but then BOOM the monsters go berserk and unleashs there most powerful attacks. If you have a weak defence you wont be able to survive lang enough to do the killing blow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tron Bonne

The party members you never use


Joined: 19 May 2005
Post Count: 12363
Location: Ceresfjellet
579843 Potch
1000 Soldiers
7777 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

attack, the best defense is a good offense, right?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
eXistence of Fly

Pointy Sticks & Ponies!


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Post Count: 4191
Location: Obel
1151694 Potch
7700 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Amyral wrote:


Quite the opposite, actually, and I would ask that you do not make rash generalization about those I play with, as you have no basis for those claims.

If you have a well-organized offense and decent defense, you can easily overcome most defenses. The best example I can think of this is in Starcraft, as that's the one I have the best experience, and the Zerg. If you try to wait out a Terran or Protoss opponent with a Zerg, you're likely to be sunk. Your best strategy is to have a solid swarm of units, as well as a well varied swarm, to overcome units that are stronger and harder to kill than your own.


Purely tactical wise is what i meant, as simply gung ho in RTS' leaves you with your pants around your ankles against anyone who can stave off your first attack.

As for defense with a Zerg, the Zerg are primarily an AoE overpopulated race so it is possible to defend against the Terrans with sunken colonies as marines and vultures range falls inside the AoE for them and they are less armoured than the Protoss to withstand it. Against the Protoss the main threat is Dragoons en masse which can be countered with the basic flyers (i forget their names its been a while since i played) as that would then force the dragoon force to focus on the units and static defenses as opposed to just the static defenses. Added with the burrowing that Zerg units can do you then have a more than adequate warning system and first line of defense barrier to any attack.

Starcraft isn't the best game to compare with however, as each race is a specialist race with their own strengths and weaknesses, and the Zerg are more an offensive race to being with as opposed to the Protoss who are overly defensive by nature.

Quote:
I did not say that, you've altered what I said. I said if you have a strong defense and bad offense, you won't win in most games. I fail to see how having a unit strong enough to cause major damage on a counter-attack constitutes having a bad offense.


Quote:
In nearly every game, no matter how strong your defense, if your offense stinks, you won't win


I took that literally with its meaning, in that if i had a breakdown of say 90% Defense 10% offense that would fall under the category of 'sucky offense' yet say, using Dawn of War as my example since its the freshest RTS I've played, If i were Eldar and had 1 group of Fire Dragons and a webway into the enemies base, victory conditions are set so that upon destroying all enemy structures the enemy is defeated, if my defense can rout the enemy army while that lone group decimates the enemies buildings i will win the match. Now, I've done that several times against my mates, all of which are avid RTSers and our matches usually go for an hour and a half of 6 of us attempting to gain the upper hand, so I simply disagreed with the literal statement that 'no matter how strong your defense if you have sucky offense you will lose' which is what you did state.

Quote:
Again, I did not state that you would win having nothing but offense, I said if you had no offense (or a flat-out bad offense), you would lose at nearly every game. You've altered that. If you want to challenge the validity of generalized claims, be my guest, but you weren't really addressing my statement.


As i quoted above, your initial generalised claim wasn't as 'open' as 'nearly every game' it was a simple 'you won't win' which was the issue at hand. If your intention was to say that your chances of success are diminished, then there is no issue since that is solely your opinion and i don't take issue to that.

Quote:
But if it makes you feel better, I'll add RTS to that exception.


That is not necessary if you do not think it is necessary, since after all it is your opinion. I am merely debating a point of an unlisted exception since we both agree to a point that RTS' cannot be won purely either way.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Amyral

Windriders


Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Post Count: 1355
Location: Sawgrass Landing
544907 Potch
4066 Soldiers
620 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

eXistence of Fly wrote:
Purely tactical wise is what i meant, as simply gung ho in RTS' leaves you with your pants around your ankles against anyone who can stave off your first attack.


Again, that's not really an assessment you can make. You don't know the tactics we used in those games, and thus don't really have a place to try to evaluate them.

And you seem to be correlating having a stronger offense than defense with blindly attacking, when they aren't the same thing at all. Granted, trying to amass a cheap type of unit and running forward is an example ot taking an aggressive stance, but that alone isn't what being mostly offensive means. That's what I do in shooters, sure, because I absolutely hate weapons like sniper rifles (and, not surprisingly, I lose 90% of the time in that genre). But that's not what being offensive is in every genre, much less every game.

For example, in Starcraft (which I'll keep using as an example simply because we both seem familiar with the game, while I'm not familiar with Dawn of War). Yes, I could try to stay back with Zerg against the Terrans, but they'd usually get through because the Terran offense has more than enough weapons that the zerg buildings can't destroy (like siege-mode tanks). However, going against that same attacking group with a mix of zerglings and ultralisks and I'll have more success. If, with that race, you try to play fortress against Protoss, you'll lose 90% of the time, but if I take a few defilers and some upgraded ultras, I'll blow through those defenses.

In the group I played with, they'd always try throwing something different at you, combinations that you wouldn't see on a normal battlenet game. Hour and a half long games? We'd push 2 or 3 hours at points. Most of the time you had to address them in creative ways to stand a chance. Having an offensive strategy doesn't mean to just keep amassing one type of unit and charging in, nor does it mean having no strategy. Quite the opposite. I'm an aggressive player and I had to employ quite a few different strategies over the course of certain games, all to varying effects. One of the guys we played with only did protoss and always focused on building the most elaborate defenses possible. I got through that defense on multiple occasions using different strategies, some blindly attacking, others not blindly attacking, but still aggressive and offensive. If I tried to repel him, I'd simply lose.

eXistence of Fly wrote:
I took that literally with its meaning, in that if i had a breakdown of say 90% Defense 10% offense that would fall under the category of 'sucky offense' yet say, using Dawn of War as my example since its the freshest RTS I've played, If i were Eldar and had 1 group of Fire Dragons and a webway into the enemies base, victory conditions are set so that upon destroying all enemy structures the enemy is defeated, if my defense can rout the enemy army while that lone group decimates the enemies buildings i will win the match. Now, I've done that several times against my mates, all of which are avid RTSers and our matches usually go for an hour and a half of 6 of us attempting to gain the upper hand, so I simply disagreed with the literal statement that 'no matter how strong your defense if you have sucky offense you will lose' which is what you did state.


That wasn't really my intent, or what I see as the literal meaning. It was meant to say that if you focused so much on defense that your offense was, in fact, terrible, then you wouldn't win. A terrible offense doesn't necessarily fall under a certain ratio, nor does a good offense necessarily mean you try to rush your enemy with basic units. I don't see how the definition of a "sucky offense" necessarily correlates with having a ratio of 90% defense and 10% offense. I find that particular ratio to be completely arbitrary to describing what offense stinks and what doesn't.

The point was simply that if you spend so much time building up a strong defense that you neglect to make an appropriate offense, you're going to lose at most games. What an appropriate offense is can change from game to game along with the mechanics. In one RTS I played, 24 of one type of unit could take out three times as many other units on the opposing side (because of how powerful they were in the game mechanics). In that case, the ratio doesn't matter. As such, I don't find stating what I said, which wasn't by any means a concrete assessment, by giving an exact ratio is accurate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
VikiFanatic

Keepers of Balance


Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Post Count: 4388
Location: Tatara Mountains
841792 Potch
0 Soldiers
760 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I prefer defensive tactics. I have a a knack for annoying my enemies when i play defensively. Call me sadistic, but i'm amused when they're all flustered and stuff. In almost anygame, i always analyze how it will turn out and play defensively. That way, i can focus on development besides conquering. Being too aggressive never returns anything good, unless you can handle the consequences...
_________________


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Assassin01

Team Assassination


Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Post Count: 1890
Location: Maha Somjab
575125 Potch
200 Soldiers
900 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I would prefer high defence values in whatever genre of game which i am playing. I usually think that going for the offence is too much effort for me (especially in games like command and conquer) so i would just like to stand ground, wait for my opponent to come to me and take out the offencive. Usually i would go for the offencive once and that is when i know i will win in the end.
_________________
OFFICIAL SMOKE BOMB USERS:
Assassin01
ViktorFan
MMan9000
Ralphy Leone Tensei
Lymsleia Falenas
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Game & Anime Discussion Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me