Clones vs. Padmé

"MasterJediBrian;c-2036891" wrote:

"jhbuchholz;c-2036887" wrote:

"MasterJediBrian;c-2036886" wrote:

"thecarterologist958;c-2036881" wrote:

"MasterJediBrian;c-2036874" wrote:


In your rush to judgment, you've botched the timeline of events. My point was that Shaak & the clones (w/o ARC) are absolutely worthless vs Padme. Not just inferior, but a cruel joke you can set on auto and fall asleep to everytime, never worrying about even getting scratched.

After this point, a couple people said they won with ARC. Against a full r7 Padme team, I'd still like to see it to believe it. There's no hypocrisy in saying you can live with a squad being inferior, but that you feel their quality & tier warrant at least a minimal threat to 1 or 2 toons. Playing "who can lay down the fastest with no accomplishment whatsoever" may be your ideal game design, not mine.

In your rush to deny me any ground in this debate, you failed to realise I was providing examples of your obtuse nature, not a comprehensive chronology of this thread. Also I'm well aware that is your point, my counter is that there is no reason it shouldn't be when Padme is designed to oppose the features clones use to deal damage, it's a similar situation with geos, and with CLS against KRU, which I recall you agreeing was acceptable, that is where the hypocrisy lies.

It is also backwards thinking to say a team should beat something because they are good, when the fact they can't beat something is an argument against them being good, it's like saying "Ewoks are the best team in the game, so why do I keep losing with them?" Oh and just a side note, my ideal game design for this is one where you actually need to think before you play and invest, not just work on one team and expect it to demolish everything as you have.

TL/DR

"MasterJediBrian;c-2036876" wrote:


They're an excellent tier 2 team

Padme is tier 1, you shouldn't expect to win.

You misrepresent people so well, you should be a lawyer. I never said I expected to win. And in the other matches, you say are similar, some casualties are possible.

Then the point of this thread is that you'd like to... lose less decisively? ?

GET THE MAN A BEER!!! ??? YESSSS!!! ? And if I may sir (channeling my Oliver Twist), "Please sir, I'd like a less decisive loss that means I actually damaged you a tiny, tiny, eency weency, tiny bit, in hopes a 2nd or 3rd battle may prove fruitful!"

To be fair, this is a pretty preposterous point to make in a post. Especially in the context of a hard counter like this. You could use one of a dozen other teams to lose less decisively with.