Vamp/SA

['Tiger']

This is probably the best post I've ever read. Also Tiger, in his initial post, said "and so fourth", proving my theory that the universe is shaped like the number 4.

And how did this theory rise?

 

[Garrett2]

The bible

 

[Dax]

Dax, im Pretty sure i remeber you posting how much you were enjoying vamps several rounds ago. Because of all the forum complaints that people weren't getting insurance....

Vamps eta 5 and eta 2 reveal is a balls ache mind

I last played Vamps when there was 'competition' for the top 100 - And even that was relatively appalling all that time ago. That being said, it was only fun for the challenge of making it through on rushes. Everything else was lame as hell, and Robo/Dogs/PB pwn the **** out of that route for fun quality.

 

[Dax]

Dax, im Pretty sure i remeber you posting how much you were enjoying vamps several rounds ago. Because of all the forum complaints that people weren't getting insurance....

Vamps eta 5 and eta 2 reveal is a balls ache mind

I last played Vamps when there was 'competition' for the top 100 - And even that was relatively appalling all that time ago. That being said, it was only fun for the challenge of making it through on rushes. Everything else was lame as hell, and Robo/Dogs/PB pwn the **** out of that route for fun quality.

More routes does not = better game. It just makes it harder to balance. Dragons kinda fit in these days as an all-round tank route, but vampires have no purpose. Anything vamps can do, SAs can do better.

And you know I'm a man that enjoys my games (and hates losing his swarm killstreaks) - But this really isn't true. SA are alright, but Vamps have uses - They're just an extremely mixed bag of uses that you can only use one or two of, and be **** at all the others.
Gargs are epic rush units, but the moment they encounter anything (even Paratroopers), they crumple like paper. Boo-hoo.

Mummies, well. They are really for the people that can get on or be around to mid tick absolutely everything - They're a big use of funds for a unit that won't fire ranged. Whilst they might not die in range, pretty much everything else will, and then they're stuffed with nothing to follow their fire in mid.

Zombies - Used to have a very specific stage of their own in the tech wars where they ruined everything and you'd have 2/3 people that have them in the top ten til the PB's killed them all (this time has been passed for about 2/3 years now due to the extreme shortening of tech wars), but they're extremely expensive for a close tick unit that does sod all damage-wise.

Vampires - They kill Nanobots, Harriers, Rangers, Marines (pretty much everything that they aren't really meant to kill at all) - And if they fire AFTER Striker/SA or RPG/SA, then you are looking at a total wipeout.

Werewolves? Well I personally only ever found a purpose for these within a route where you don't purchase Vampires at all (til they're free, anyway). They're great LETflak, but the conversion rate is dog **** at best - And their punch is like throwing a wet cloth at a sleeping vagrant (funny, but all-in-all, a waste of time).

 

[tobapopalos]

I think you just kinda validated my "vamps have no purpose" point

 

[Alcibiades]

I think you just kinda validated my "vamps have no purpose" point

 

[Dax]

I think you just kinda validated my "vamps have no purpose" point

I wasn't disputing this point, it was more the 'anything Vamps do SA do better' - Which as I pointed out isn't entirely true. They are a fairly valid choice for somebody who is unwilling to pay for Vampires or SA themselves. I'd personally pick non-pay Vamp over non-pay SA as Assassins are utter dog ****.

 

[tobapopalos]

True, vampires are not completely rubbish against every route, but if I was leading an alliance again I would forbid anyone from choosing them. What they do can be done far better by other routes. That is the point I was getting at with the SA quote.

 

[Dax]

True, vampires are not completely rubbish against every route, but if I was leading an alliance again I would forbid anyone from choosing them. What they do can be done far better by other routes. That is the point I was getting at with the SA quote.

Oh, touche'. In fairness, I still remember the route setup I made for one of my alliances where I totally disregarded every modern route that exists (no SO/Fantasy at all), and it was brilliantly effective (until something happened, I'm not entirely sure what).

Proven point - Take it back to basics. Remove SO/Fantasy for luls.

 

[Alcibiades]

I think you just kinda validated my "vamps have no purpose" point

I wasn't disputing this point, it was more the 'anything Vamps do SA do better' - Which as I pointed out isn't entirely true. They are a fairly valid choice for somebody who is unwilling to pay for Vampires or SA themselves. I'd personally pick non-pay Vamp over non-pay SA as Assassins are utter dog ****.

I quite enjoy Assassins, but I also suck.... sooo, there is that.

 

[Koeniej]

Dax, im Pretty sure i remeber you posting how much you were enjoying vamps several rounds ago. Because of all the forum complaints that people weren't getting insurance....

Vamps eta 5 and eta 2 reveal is a balls ache mind

I last played Vamps when there was 'competition' for the top 100 - And even that was relatively appalling all that time ago. That being said, it was only fun for the challenge of making it through on rushes. Everything else was lame as hell, and Robo/Dogs/PB pwn the **** out of that route for fun quality.

That last sentence is like saying 'Robo's are **** because they get pwnd by RPG's, Strikers and Harriers'

 

[tobapopalos]

You misread it, Koeniej.

 

[Koeniej]

He mentioned those low init units because they messed up his rushes?

 

[tobapopalos]

Everything else was lame as hell, and Robo/Dogs/PB pwn the **** out of that route for fun quality.

He was simply saying that those other routes were far more fun than vamps.

 

[edd]

I think i read somewhere in a previous thread from a long time ago about people not liking vamps to which somebody responded that some of the people playing it enjoy playing it for the whole "I get to be zombies/undead stuff" factor rather than where it stacks up as a route compared to others. There were more people than i expected that agreed with whoever said that and I think even Azzer himself did.

I personally don't care either way but that's more likely because fantasy has been around longer than I've been playing i think.

 

[Koeniej]

Everything else was lame as hell, and Robo/Dogs/PB pwn the **** out of that route for fun quality.

He was simply saying that those other routes were far more fun than vamps.

Doh! I see it now

 

[Nickk]

I agree the vamp route isn't great. However some people enjoy the aspect of converting/no insurance. I don't see a reason to get rid of the route if some people are still choosing to go vamps.

 

[Garrett2]

you get rid of it because it will enhance the game overall. which is what this thread is about.

 

[MattM]

If we're going to talk about enhancing the game overall, something needs to be done about harriers

 

[Alcibiades]

I agree the vamp route isn't great. However some people enjoy the aspect of converting/no insurance. I don't see a reason to get rid of the route if some people are still choosing to go vamps.

it's a bug, not a feature. That is one of the most important reasons to get rid of it. That and it sucks goatnuts.