sin could you be any more cocky and annoying? (answer i certainly hope not)... isn't enough that you make most of NA h8 v3... do you have to make euro do it too? :\ clans like Rush and ns will alway be more "l33t" than v3 becuase they are good ppl as well as good players and that is what is important
Berky plz:/ us V3 are kool and stuff , but damn a 3432423 page story of some rush bitching about us useing tha boost trick in one matched pissed us off kthx:) its all good
FLASHBACK... FlAsHbAcK... flashback..
Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One
Sin is the only guy I know that can stuff 5 kthx's into an otherwise 4 word sentence.
AND HURRY WITH 1.7 SO THE DAMN EURO FAD OF DEATHBALL-KILLING BOOST GOALS WILL STOP (People have stereotyped NA enough here, now it is my turn to state simple fact, for boost goals were never used in NA until cY played V3):ban:
AND HURRY WITH 1.7 SO THE DAMN EURO FAD OF DEATHBALL-KILLING BOOST GOALS WILL STOP (People have stereotyped NA enough here, now it is my turn to state simple fact, for boost goals were never used in NA until cY played V3):ban:
Here I made a rant for you all about boosting and pbox camping:
Here's a little diagram I made. Double lined arrow means "just boosted". Now, with all those O there, there's nothing a D can do except guard. This diagram doesn't even take into account that enemy offense 1 and 2 might boost. What should a D do OTHER than pbox camp? He's got 3 guys incoming, 1 friendly almost back to D, and 1 friendly who is getting boosted over to help. It would be ridiculous for him to go and try to intimidate the man with the ball.
Let's pretend that all 3 friendlies get back on D. You can't play man2man in this situation unless you're sure that the enemy O will suck. Why? -> It's very easy to boost the backup D away. You try man2man and I guarantee that the O will get an open man if they've got some skill. The only smart way to play this is to have some form of zoning: pbox camping.
Yet another point....Pretend that the 2 enemies without the ball boostfrom the midpoint. He is completely open unless one of the friendly O dies OR the D is sitting around the pbox. You can't get around it, if this is how you guys like DB, then PBOX camping will always be here.
There is no logic whatsoever to get rid of pbox camping in the current style of play. It does not matter why people started "cheap" tactics of offense like broomstick, they do it and the D must act accordingly. Until the game ceases to revolve around boost and focuses more on skill, you guys don't need to worry about shooting. Just boost back and forth from O to D until finally one man who you boost gets open. Don't act surprised, because that is exactly what this game has turned into.
Here's a little diagram I made. Double lined arrow means "just boosted". Now, with all those O there, there's nothing a D can do except guard. This diagram doesn't even take into account that enemy offense 1 and 2 might boost. What should a D do OTHER than pbox camp? He's got 3 guys incoming, 1 friendly almost back to D, and 1 friendly who is getting boosted over to help. It would be ridiculous for him to go and try to intimidate the man with the ball.
Let's pretend that all 3 friendlies get back on D. You can't play man2man in this situation unless you're sure that the enemy O will suck. Why? -> It's very easy to boost the backup D away. You try man2man and I guarantee that the O will get an open man if they've got some skill. The only smart way to play this is to have some form of zoning: pbox camping.
Yet another point....Pretend that the 2 enemies without the ball boostfrom the midpoint. He is completely open unless one of the friendly O dies OR the D is sitting around the pbox. You can't get around it, if this is how you guys like DB, then PBOX camping will always be here.
There is no logic whatsoever to get rid of pbox camping in the current style of play. It does not matter why people started "cheap" tactics of offense like broomstick, they do it and the D must act accordingly. Until the game ceases to revolve around boost and focuses more on skill, you guys don't need to worry about shooting. Just boost back and forth from O to D until finally one man who you boost gets open. Don't act surprised, because that is exactly what this game has turned into.
Can you please stop trying to oversimply our playing style...
We've used broomstick goals since we played cy.13, this is true, but we use them sparsely. In the 2 rush scrims in question we had 2 broomstick goals in each game, out of a total of 19 goals. Maybe it's just me but I fail to see a problem with that. Despite what you might think they're very stoppable, you just have to rely on the offense more than the defense for it.
I think I need to clear up what people are acussing us of...they say we use an abundant amount of boost goals, which simply isn't true. What we've been doing lately is boosting a guy up, passing to him, but he'll never reach the pbox. Instead, he either lands before it in a 1 on 1 with a defender (not the keeper) which we can usually score off, or he'll pass it off midair to a guy near the pbox for a 2 on 1 (once again, against a defender not the keeper). As far as I'm concerned this is not only a valid tactic, but a smart one.
V3 goes through playing styles by the week. We've gone from shooting to volleying to pass volleying to boost passing to boost body volley back to shooting...we can pull out anything in a game we want, it just depends on how we're playing. It pisses me off to see a clan like rush have people accuse us of broomsticking every goal ever, when we've beaten them at least 10 times with no broomstick goals at all.
I also find it funny that the cy teams are bashing us after we beat them, considering cy are the broomstick kings of the world. In playing cy, maybe 1/20th of all our goals total were broomsticks. How is that not fair?
We've used broomstick goals since we played cy.13, this is true, but we use them sparsely. In the 2 rush scrims in question we had 2 broomstick goals in each game, out of a total of 19 goals. Maybe it's just me but I fail to see a problem with that. Despite what you might think they're very stoppable, you just have to rely on the offense more than the defense for it.
I think I need to clear up what people are acussing us of...they say we use an abundant amount of boost goals, which simply isn't true. What we've been doing lately is boosting a guy up, passing to him, but he'll never reach the pbox. Instead, he either lands before it in a 1 on 1 with a defender (not the keeper) which we can usually score off, or he'll pass it off midair to a guy near the pbox for a 2 on 1 (once again, against a defender not the keeper). As far as I'm concerned this is not only a valid tactic, but a smart one.
V3 goes through playing styles by the week. We've gone from shooting to volleying to pass volleying to boost passing to boost body volley back to shooting...we can pull out anything in a game we want, it just depends on how we're playing. It pisses me off to see a clan like rush have people accuse us of broomsticking every goal ever, when we've beaten them at least 10 times with no broomstick goals at all.
I also find it funny that the cy teams are bashing us after we beat them, considering cy are the broomstick kings of the world. In playing cy, maybe 1/20th of all our goals total were broomsticks. How is that not fair?
if you can win without them then why use them?
The way I, and i'm sure many other see it, its a lame ass free-goal type move that requires no skill to perform. At least if set jumping was on it'd only be possible for a very small section of the field because you'd be forced to jump at certain times.
No matter why you say, boost goals are still cheap moves and always will be because they defeat the purpose of moving the ball upfield at slower speed as the game has it. We lost dribble because it had the same effect. One rambo going up fied at the same speed as the defenders which led to breakaways and made the ball carrier run speed pointless. This boost goal does it even faster than dribbling AND risk free AND 90% of the time results in a shot on goal.
Now tell me how thats a legitimate tactic?
The way I, and i'm sure many other see it, its a lame ass free-goal type move that requires no skill to perform. At least if set jumping was on it'd only be possible for a very small section of the field because you'd be forced to jump at certain times.
No matter why you say, boost goals are still cheap moves and always will be because they defeat the purpose of moving the ball upfield at slower speed as the game has it. We lost dribble because it had the same effect. One rambo going up fied at the same speed as the defenders which led to breakaways and made the ball carrier run speed pointless. This boost goal does it even faster than dribbling AND risk free AND 90% of the time results in a shot on goal.
Now tell me how thats a legitimate tactic?