Inspired by the wording I used in my post from yesterday, I chose the topic for today.
I'm often a defensive player in Splinterlands. Of course, that's not a rule, and I sometimes choose lineups which are fully offensive to the point of being reckless. Or, in others, I am more balanced.
A defensive player, when he sees the ruleset and the opponent, generally thinks how to counter the enemy's strong points. I don't always go that deep with the analysis, but generally I do make choices to counter the enemy if I know he is likely to play a certain type of lineup or could take advantage of a certain ruleset. Unless I want to finish my DQ already, lol.
I like when I'm playing defensively and when I'm able to counter the enemy's team. Especially if they have a strong fire power.
An offensive player, on the other hand, wants to overpower the enemy or attack first as much as possible. That usually means focused fire and often buffs either on the fire power or the speed or both.
Games where the offensive player has the upper hand are usually short. Those where the defensive resists can last longer, but not always. But defensive players are generally preparing for longer games and are ok outlasting the enemy. Which often pisses off offensive players.
Before the introduction of amplify and forcefield abilities, I believe strong offensive players could overpower defensive ones in many circumstances. Now, things are more even.
I once read something, I think it had basis in reality. Two arms manufacturers from the past were very good at what they did. One produced firing projectiles (like for cannons), the other produced armor to protect against these new types of projectiles.
And there was a sort of competition between the two. When the one who produced bombs came up with something new and revolutionary, the other one improved his armors to protect against the new types of bombs.
I don't remember the finality or moral of the story, but the idea is the attacker always had the initiative. He had to innovate first, or his bombs weren't effective anymore. The defender, on the other hand, couldn't really innovate to protect against imaginary attacks. The threat had to be real so he could go to the drawing board and see what he could do to counter it.
In a way it's the same in Splinterlands. Defenders start to improve a strategy that's working when they're attacked in a different way, they hadn't anticipated before.
The interesting part about Splinterlands games is that you can't know your enemy's strategy until it's too late, and both of you have locked yours in. You can guess based on the recent battles and the mana cap and the ruleset, but you can always have complete surprises. That's not something you see in real war, where every move the enemy makes is known and analyzed.
Some degree of control post knowing the enemy lineup will be introduced to Splinterlands with items and spells, after land expansion. That's going to be a big change, and it will give the element of surprise a less important role in the game.
How are you as a Splinterlands player? More defensive or more offensive? Why?
Not playing Splinterlands? It's always a good time to start.
