User talk:145.94.74.23/Archive2

Assuming spike teams are less strategical than balanced teams (in the definition: team that doesn't have a strict pre-battle strategy and tries to outsmart opponents, using skills that are effective in most scenarios), there are three options. 1. You can balance the game around balanced teams, giving ranged damage a place by giving it utility roles and making the damage a nice side-effect useful in spike assist situations. Note that you can keep the Ranger spike, only it would be weaker than balanced teams thus making them ideal to farm lesser players, 2. You can balance the game around spike teams which is less desirable than point 1 because balanced teams are more strategical (going back to the axioma: the more strategy the better), 3. You can make them equal in power on top levels. However, since spike teams are less strategical, they are less fun to play for the top levels and thus they are still less desirable than balanced teams. Conclusion: The only place for spike teams is inferiority to balanced builds. Now, the only thing left discussing is whether spike teams are more or less strategical than balanced teams. So let's get back to that discussion shall we? Dark Morphon 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have had the dubious honor of being the first person that was archived from an archive. Your conclusion, which is entirely based upon your opinions and adapting the defenition of balanced just to make spike teams look stupid, isn't even worth placing in my normal archive. If you want me to reply to you, please read the discussion and then comment please, not just the last post. 145.94.74.23 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL hypocrite. Dark Morphon 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)