That's exactly the part I will never understand. Your opponent plays with best possible setups while you don't, and then you whine why you lose.lefze wrote:Organized warband =/= competitive warband. And if you don't want to play in a certain way, does it make sense to whine about the opposition playing to their strengths????!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!??Glorian wrote:Because Order doesn't like to play only: Kotbs, AM, BW. They like to play also the other 9 classes too. Some of us ran the optimized moral bomb warbands on life for years. So why should we do it here too? For what?
Also Order not organizing is in fact also not true. Join a guild on Order and see. Ofc we don't do it on /1 where every tablechair general can give his opinion.
I don't know a single game that doesn't have a meta. There will always be something that's best, simple as that. We always (almost) play with best possible setups, min-maxing and playing tactically to our advantage. Ofc you won't win with 2 engie, 4 sw wb against a full min-maxed guild wb. Should you? There are different ways to play the game still, order doesn't NEED 8 bws to be effective. There is a point in every game where you reach cheese levels, and at that point things will have to start getting balanced, however devs see fit, and if they think stuff should change.
But for me personally, the most fun is playing well with unconventional setups that are 'doomed to fail'.