Not quite. Snipe, as used in my example, would be capable of bringing down any Demigod regardless of Build. To counter this Snipe Stacking, you'd be forced to play a specific way - stacking HP, for example
I don't understand your objection, because thats exactly whats supposed to happen. When your opponent does something, and there are a finite amount of methods of counterplay which work. If you execute one of them, you have a better chance of winning. Additionally, stacking HP is an in-game decision, not a prematch decision, which means that there is little pre-match RPS.
and any Demigod who enhances this play style becomes the preferable Demigod to handle the situation. Instead of every Demigod being viable with room for variation, we have a much more limited number of viable combinations. This is my main issue.
Again, this happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable. AA Reg becomes weaker against any team with an Erebus. Mines Reg becomes better against melee-stacked enemy teams. Good players use this far less for some kind of pre-match metagaming than for in-match maneuvering. For example, as Sedna I try to put myself in the same lane as an enemy UB, since I can handle him easily, whereas he would have a far better time fighting against just about anyone else.
I suppose your objection is that against certain doubled teams (say, dual UB), Sedna would become too important, and Reg would become too risky. To this I say that firstly this is unavoidable and would happen even against non-doubled teams. Sedna would still be important and Reg would still be risky against 1 Erebus 1 UB. Second, its acceptable for certain tactics to be more effective than others. You don't need to be 2x Sedna to beat 2x UB, though that would probably work. There are a wide range of build combinations that can beat 2x UB, to varying degrees. There will always be some amount of pre-game metagaming, but in my experience there is very little in Demigod in general, and I do not feel that doubles significantly increase it.
Actually I lost because I was fighting against three Sednas who were quite capable of walking through a Rook tower farm, UB's Spit and our the front of our base despite excellent team work and timed use of Stuns on my Teams behalf. We simply didn't get any kills for the duration of the match due to their surviveability being far higher than any other combination of Demigods could provide. Focus firing down any one of them was impossible when two heals later the one we had wasted our Mana on was back to full health and the three of us were now OOM. As for stacking two different DGDAs to achieve the same effects, show me any that have the same Damage Output over the same Range as two Snipes focus firing, two that can restore as much health as quickly as Heal, two that can enable as much shepparding as 16 Rooks towers. The fact is, stacking the two abilities works amazing at it's purpose; extending the benefits of those abilities. Each DGDA is a DGDA because it's the best at it's intended purpose.
Now heres the problem. That survivability didn't come from nowhere. It cost them several DG slots to get it. DG selection is a zero-sum affair, which means that there is no way to increase the overall number of DGDAs on a given team. A 3 man team has 3 DGDAs, period. Therefore, in your example the enemy team stacked its defense, but clearly gimped itself in all other areas (no AoE, weak offense, no stuns). If we were to rate that team they would have 10/10 in defense but very weak scores in most other areas. There is no inherent advantage in a team that goes 10-2-2-2, compared to a team that goes 4-4-4-4, or 6-5-3-2, or 5-4-4-3, etc.
Why do you feel the need to call them 'scrubs'? I disagree with the intentional use of stacked Demigod abilties to alter the teams chances of winning. Why does this make me a 'scrub'?
I did not coin the term, I am merely calling them by their definition.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
You clearly feel that the old "any excuse'll do" approach stands true here because you believe you have a far better understanding of the underlying mechanics and are able to win where these 'scrubs' fail because you're better at the game in general. I find this to be a gross underestimate of the points put forth in this thread. I feel they're complaining because there is something wrong here, and you don't agree with it because you don't have a better understanding of the underlying mechanics, rather a lack of understanding.
I believe it is actually you who lack understanding. You have played a grand total of 11 games this epoch, all pugs from the looks of it.
Now that we have finished attacking each other's credibility, lets return to arguing the points.
Actually, a team with two capable Sednas where the other characters are any other mixture against a team with one Sedna's is going to have vastly superior surviveability.
Obviously. But again, this is zero-sum. That survivability comes at the cost of other attributes which are equally valuable.
3 surviveability Sednas VS a complete mixture of Demigods. The problem remains. Sufficent stackong of any one Demigod build creates too much of an advantage at it's purpose - if played correctly, including item use, the build is too good for it be considered balanced in the grand scheme of things.
I counter by stating that 3 Sednas is in fact a bad team build. Its not OP, there is no mystical magical advantage, and there is no "problem." Again, this goes back to zero-sum. They have one really good thing about their team, but everything else sucks. This is not automatically better or worse than a more balanced approach (though often worse in practice).
I believe a No-Demigod stacking policy should apply, for the resons I've already stated.
This, then, is the purpose of this thread. This would be a very bad idea. For reasons I've already stated, doubles are not inherently stronger than non-doubles, and in fact are often weaker due to their singular weaknesses. Why should be ban things that are weak?
