Sky Fortress Overpowered

[Prog]

Let's consider the game I mentioned (regardless of the fact that obviously noone can show me any replays where the alleged imbaness is proved): It's true that you had a discer with 2-14 in ~min 20 (?), we had one in ~min 34 (?) with 4-7. At this time our team had approximatly 14 kills more than the other one. You had the first Sky Fortress at ~1:06:xx with ~17-25 stats. The game ended at ~1:42:xx and you got 22-49 stats (while the other sf of yours was at -7 and one at +4) - you see how your stats actually got worse by playing sky fortress 40 minutes? (The stats of at the +4 sf got worse as well while playing sf, didn't check the difference of the -7 one). This raises some questions:

Point is...longer the games/better the weapons, the more rigged fortress gets.

(Bangyouredead)

How long you want to play till it gets "rigged"? 2 1/2 hours? 1:40:xx doesn't seem to be long enough.

If your enemy team is not positive before they have SF, because your team is much better and got stronger weapons and maybe they have not enough teamplay to arrange in 2v2 dual holding

(Gammagulp)

Remember what Bangyouredead said?

Even without voice, doing it 2v2 or 3v3 would be simple.

(Bangyouredead)

Well, as it is so simple Frechheit, Bang and 2 other bt clan members should be able to do this and won't lack of enough teamplay to arrange dual holding, shouldn't they?

There is no effective counter, solo or in team games...especially if its a very pro game.

(Bangyouredead)

Well, maybe it wasn't a top-notch game, but if there should be no counter, most middleclass players (bt clan members are said to be at least this skilled) should be able to win with a non-counterable strat, shouldn't they?

We dont say SF=win [...]

(Gammagulp)

Well, it's true that you don't say that in it's strictest sense but as it is said to be without an effective counter it should win the game if the skill gap isn't very big. As Bang did rather poorly that game (and at least one other teammate of him did worse than normal as well) that might have been the case, but how shall we judge if it was? When can we say it was only the SF winning the game and when was it the skill difference? We can't wait for perfect games on both sides as they will never occur, we just can use our empiric values from games we played to determine (well it's basicly underdetermined, but we may can get at least some kind of better picture) the alleged overpower and I never played a game where I would say that mostly the SF did the job, not the skill (and you seem to can't show any replays - I can upload the one I was speaking about, if needed, but Bang was playing in that as well, so I don't think it's necessery).