I want to to start by saying I and my clan like the idea behind Gambit. We are mainly a pve focused group but two of us occasionally engage in pvp. Gambit allows us all to play in our comfort zone. The levels of blockers and intervals for them provide a good amount of strategy options. Do we spam several small blockers immediately to try and block their wave 1 banks, or save up and wait for the invasion phase and drop a large blocker or two.
but with that praise comes a decent negative. We ran into one strategy being employed by a team we matched against twice in a row that soured the experience for the rest of the night.
Once the opposing team had summoned their prime evil they developed a new strategy to handle Invaders. Once invaded the team would immiediately commit suicide by charging nearby enemies and refusing to fight back. By dying to enemies (which does NOT heal their prime evil) and waiting their maxum time to respawn they essentially denied us the ability to recover their prime evil and made invading a next to pointless endeavor. This could be mitigated by opening up the criteria a little and making it so ANY death will heal the prime evil once it's out, but only during the period where an enemy invader is present. This would allow Invaders to apply pressure more adequately but not drastically increase the danger represented by enemy pve units (except for when the invader is present). This would also make dispatching enemy Invaders more of a priority instead of just hiding from them.
English
-
That’s sounds like a valid and creative strategy.. I hate gambit but we need less posts calling to take something away....
-
I agree with your last point about the deliberate death/invader issue. I've not seen it but can see how that could ruin a match.