The only vibes I get from those videos is a bunch of people who can't block charge at each other with very little thought behind it.
Just when I thought you would like it out of all people as it sums up your gameplay to perfection.
why u gotta do me like that
But on a more serious note, the meta of this game has simply evolved beyond what you see in those videos. I don't necessarily believe that the meta you're describing was better or more entertaining, it just seems like complete chaos and randomness to me. Neither do I believe that different or more interesting maps are going to change the meta in any meaningful way. A map being interesting or not does not change whether a weaker regiment can run from melee or not. Yes, retreating up a hill could potentially slow the regiment down, but that seems like such a specific scenario that I doubt the actual impact it would have on the meta. If regiments want to retreat from melee like that, they will simply make sure they're not positioned in a way where their only way of retreat is up a big hill. Tbh, I think it is perfectly understandable for a regiment with weaker melee to run away from the stronger regiment in a 2v2. It is really annoying to play against, but as long as you don't retreat like 2Lr did last time I have nothing against it. I think the map terrain was mostly fine in the last 2v2, although it wouldn't hurt to make the hills slightly more pronounced. You don't want super hilly maps because then the sides will just camp. You also don't want super flat maps with no cover, because then one of the two sides will stand in spawn and shoot. You want slight rolling hills everywhere or alternatively one big hill in the middle that both sides can reach around the same time, with some smaller hills for cover around it. I agree that the maps were definitely too big last time tho, this didn't help the problem of regiments running around the map, but Kincaid already said he was working on that.
I am not denying the meta has evolved but you must be some sort of masochist adept of a dark cult if you actually enjoy the current meta of 1v1/2v2 linebattles more than what you played in 2012/2013. For instance, nobody would argue the game's way more skilled than it used to be in 2012/2014 but thinking what we have now is actually more entertaining - in the literal sense of the word - really surprise me coming from you. I don't argue that it was better as it's purely subjective but as someone who actually played both for years, there is no denying that the way to play linebattles back in the day was more enjoyable. Not more skilled, definitely not more tactical but more enjoyable without a doubt. An indisputable majority of the OG players that came back to the game (leaders especially) will tell you they despise the way the meta evolved and again, it's not necessarily a bias as they will also agree on other indisputable, better aspect of the current competitive community.
I didn't play 1v1s back in 2013, so I can't really judge from anything other than the video's that I've seen. And, yeah I personally hate passive players or passive play in general and I personally really don't like it either when people run away from me. I hate that kinda shit with a passion because it doesn't feel like you're being out-skilled as an individual, just "out-patienced".
But, as a regimental CO , a good part of my personal enjoyment in 1v1s comes from when my regiment wins because it has a coherent line and is disciplined in melee. It is entertaining to me if we win melee fights because people listen to commands and fight properly. For example, if we call for middle to push into a flank and it works, I definitely get a great deal of personal enjoyment from it. I know 1v1 melee isn't the "glorious" all out charge melee as it might have once been. But you have to understand that this regiment is a project that I've invested a lot of time in over the last three years (yes very sad), so when it goes right I get a great deal of personal enjoyment from it. In the RGL final, where 92nd was essentially sitting back and waiting for us to make mistakes, we obviously weren't happy with the manner in which we were losing. Every round was super drawn out and often resulted in two lines spinning in circles and a lot of running around chasing stragglers. We weren't having fun, until we adapted and started doing the same. Mels said something after one of the rounds which stuck with me: "This isn't melee, but I'm actually quite enjoying it". The melee itself is maybe less enjoyable as it is less "glorious" to simply push one flank and up/down everyone that fails to escape whilst the other flank falls back. But that is simply how regimental melee is won and I enjoy it when my regiment does it right.
I understand some older regimental leaders weren't happy with the meta last time they played. (I suppose you're talking about 14e and 84e in the last season) They obviously didn't like it as they weren't used to it, I assume those regiments were expecting the same type of melee as in those videos from 2012. But they also didn't like it because they weren't able or willing to adapt to it, and lost because of it. I can understand that 84e and 14e didn't care enough about the game and weren't around for long enough at the time to want to or to be able to adapt to the meta. They simply didn't care about winning the tournament and didn't have the time to adapt, so from their point of view the matches against us might have been really horrible. But from my point of view, the matches against them were very enjoyable.
Not gonna reply to the rest as we seem to agree on that. I should've read ur first post better.
