Awilix Info

Ahh.
I see what you mean now.

I don't really have any thing to add, you answered all my questions. There is no counter argument I can make without backtracking.

So I guess all that is left is to tip my hat and politely see myself out.
K THX BYE.

It's not that I CAN'T argue about Smite, it's that I choose to stay a little passive and NOT argue.

There's a difference between not understanding the game and then trying to argue about it, then choosing not to argue about it because you are trying to be quiet.

I commend you for the way you handled this discussion, considering so many have trouble doing so. +rep and keep being a good sport!

Why isn't she very good?

Personally I don't find Awilix broken or anything. I've just been doing well with her since people don't really know how she works. I think that she has an ideal, unique kit that is balanced for the most part.

Awilix does have some counters. I'd say that Awilix' strafe difficulty on Suku was meant to do bad against Bacchus' Intoxicate specifically. Also I've noticed cripples are extremely hard to deal with while playing with her.

Something to continue on the discussion - Ganks aren't only a one way thing. Nor is there ever one approach. You can gank having the mindset of not just getting a kill but putting pressure on the enemy so your ally has an better time in lane. It also helps get your team ahead by denying farm and buffs.

*rolls eyes*

Slight exaggeration.

Thor is said to be countered by "looking up." Now, tell me, how often you can "look up" at a time? A second? Two seconds?

How long before the enemy laner sees you looking away and takes advantage of it? How long before you look again? You have a lane to keep, after all. Ten seconds? Fifteen seconds? Can you remember to keep looking up every fifteen seconds over and over and over for fifteen minutes?

And how long does it take Thor to ult and hit you? Three? Four? Five?

As a Thor main, I can tell you that in even higher levels of play, people don't look up. They don't look up because it isn't very effective, because it makes you easy to punish, isn't very effective at actually finding Thor, and is a huge distraction and detriment - in a game with Blink Gebs, imagine turning around to look to the side for even a second.

Yes, technically, there is warning, but the warning it so incredibly hard to spot and dangerous to check that it's worthless. No one looks up because it isn't effective. Instead, people ward unusual spots, or just try to avoid Thor's ****.

As for Loki, well, you can't see him, and can't ward him. Yes, you can here him, but unless you're Apollo, no one if going to pop CC on an invisible Loki, just because he's somewhere in the area, any more than a cop would shoot into random houses and bushes when a criminal is in the area. So your best bet is to hit him as soon as he pops out, which means Loki has basically already delivered his whole damage. Which means pure death.

So yeah, they both technically have warning, it's just that they might as well have no warning.

Dunno where you live, but that last metaphor could actually apply pretty often.

But that's neither here nor there >.>

A few things.

It doesn't change the point. If you are not going to argue you should jump into them or start them. To me "won't" or "can't" means the same in this situation.

Another thing.
If you are going to reply at all then reply to the entire message and not just one sentence.
WHAT do you have to say to me about litterly everyong else i said on that comment? "Silence is confirmation" if you don't say anything i will peronally take that as my awnser.

Um, you're a Thor main you say?

Looking up is one thing, and you're definitely right that people don't look up. But there is a few other clues that I find FAR more helpful than looking up, and that would be his audio cues.

His charge-up has a sound that can be heard from rather close by, with a very distinct voiceline.

When he is actually in the air you can hear a humming sound, and THAT is actually what has saved me so many times. My teammates hear that humming sound and give us all a warning, so we know it's coming.

When he is about to land (during that short chargeup time in the air), there is another loud audio cue, and that would be your time to either Aegis, pop an invuln ability, beads, jump, etc.

Because of all those audio cues, to say Thor is "impossible to counter" is a bit of an overstatement.

Loki, yeah, you're right, he's definitely harder to counter than Thor. Except in Arena.

In Arena, the moment you hear a Loki use of any of his abilities, you should all group up into a tiny little ball, because nothing shuts down a Loki like a team of people who group up. In a solo que this will be hard, but on a coordinated team a Loki is a joke, free kills.

In CQ, it's definitely harder. But, then you just need to get good at predicting when it's coming. His 3 does actually follow his body, so if you hear the sound getting louder, you know he's going for you, and if it gets softer, he's moving away from you.

So, to say "no warning" is a bit of an exaggeration. Assassins are SUPPOSED to be unpredictable (hence... assassins), but there are still a fair number of nonobvious ways to detect them.



What? How does it NOT change the point? How does "can't" and "won't" mean the same thing?

For example, if a weightlifter is not strong enough to bench X number of pounds, he CAN'T do it, but if another weightlifter who is strong enough to do it has a weightlifting competition in 10 minutes, he WON'T do it because he doesn't want to tire himself out. I know you said "in this situation", but I don't see what you mean. You don't really explain what makes this situation different than any other situation.

Now, since you command that I respond to your entire thing, you made some metaphor about calling for the hounds, and how I shouldn't be allowed to argue about Smite because I "give up" (choose to stop) after 2 comments.

Just like I said, I CHOOSE to stop because I don't want to have any confrontations. Not that I "give up" on my argument. Once again it's a "can't" and "won't" kind of thing.

my point is that can't or won't don't mather which one it is.

at the end of it all you start an argument but then stop, in this case i dont care if it is "won't" or "can't" if you are for what ever reason not going to defend your own arguments that YOU start then you should NOT even start.

if you don't either stop starting arguments or start defending your arguments we might as well just fully ignore everything you say because there is litterly no reason to argue with you. you will give up and the cycle continue's.

i don't see you having any credibility in any arguments anymore.

when i asked you to reply to the whole thing is spesificly ment the part where you insult us... what do you have to say for your self...

and what do other people have to say... when sub insulted people he got huge backlashes, heck when he said as much as that he was going to mock some one he got backlashed...

i get accused of having a god complex and he get's called bad by YOU and NOBODY DOES ****ING ANYTHING!

that pisses me off to no end... nobody likes hypocrites...

can dish it out but the moment they need to take it up the ****ing *** they back out...

---

dont argue at all or defend your ****ing statements.

dont start arguments untill you are ready to defend.

or stay quiet like you say you will.

untill you start defending your arguments out of all people you are the least credible... the person who just gives up... "won't" or "can't" doesn't mather.


stop this ****ing hypocricy...