For something a bit different over the countless complaints threads. I’m of the opinion that overall being aggressive works better that being defensive. What are your thoughts?
My thoughts on it
While at times throughout a match you will need to do both, when playing outside of a group/coordinated environment, I’ve tended to noticed, when teams overall play more aggressive they get the W.
Thesis: When teams play aggressive if they get kill or 2, even if they are subsequently wiped, the push power against them will be reduced, they’ll be further forward and when they get a complete wipe, they will likely have more team remaining because I believe it’s harder to play on the backfoot, while doing so you in a stronger actual position that, being further forward and aggressive can allow some more defensive team members to get their poke in or even damage against the forts.
Now I understand this isn’t always the case. I remember watching like Gen. G vs Dignitas and thinking that both teams were great on Macro and the 2 best in the world Gen. G were playing super aggressive while Dignitas playing defensive and actually managed to get some wins over them.
A side thing, I think it’s more fun as well, which means your brain might not wonder off or get the yips and not play as well because you frustrated (I can’t quite remember what it’s called right now)
Long answer is that the team should play to the same level of tempo and aggression/caution which will result in an intimidating amount of coordination to the enemy team. However, the team composition can also influence the optimal level of aggression to play at.
A team with strong macro and good waveclear, for example, is better off playing more defensively to use their macro skills when not fighting, and using this map advantage to influence objective control. On the other hand, some teams such as Ch0’de’Gall teams or full dive teams need to force decisive fights and fully commit each time. In either case each team member should have full awareness of the appropriate play style.
I learned this from a Master tank player who asks themselves this when they play the game.
All of it boiled down to the Active vs Reactive.
Active: You start the engages, they react. Reactive: They start the engages, you react.
All of it depends on whether you can make something out of it or not, for example a late game comp is more likely to be defensive while an early game comp is more likely to be aggressive because they will struggle, so they are required to make that snowball happening to maintain a presence, at least to some extent.
Obviously these aren’t game defining factors but it helps giving you a perspective into how to approach the fights.
I’m preferably an Aggressive player, I do a lot of risks sometimes I do it so well I end up top deaths (1-5 at most for the average game) with it, but its not always the right answer for such play and this applies to overly defensive too,
Sometimes not participating in fights is the win, you waste their time as the macro overwhelms them which opens the map for you to capitalize on it for all your needs.
So in the end, just depends entirely on how you want to approach, but one thing it helped me is that even in a QM game where the comp is trash garbage its still winnable, it just the approach needs to be different for everyone, hopefully they follow suit with it.
But someone wise once said: “Death is the best CC.” -idk who tbh
I’d argue that an aggressive macro team would be better.
Example: You have a Zag and Azmo on your team. Instead of sitting back and slowly push the lanes, I’d say it’s better to have them push hard in opposite lanes to force the opponents teams hands.
I’m much the same but I noticed, I tend to get more value than I lose doing this.
Which is why I preferenced the start of my rant with a “throughout a match you will need to do both”.
I think a good example is Valla;
I’ve seen some AA build Vallas play super agreesive and die a few times in a row for little stacks BUT if you don’t by end game, you’ll hit like a truck and be very fast!
I’ve seen some play super defensively and get to no value, still have the attack speed because they haven’t died but they’ve done very little.
I had a GM player say the same thing to us and basically said, it’s always better to be the active team!
Aggressive players. I can’t stand overly passive players. Like Vallas who are lowest damage, still stutter stepping in and out thinking if she should retreat even though the whole team is in front of her, someone else is the focus target, and she’s in the clear to just unload.
I would say that low level macro players are the worst because they think the only way they can win is by killing minions and avoiding all fights until they have a 2 level advantage as if they’re playing a 10 minute no rush game. So even if their micro is good, we would never know. They don’t realize that a good aggressive team will exploit that by pushing another point that will overwhelm the rest of the team, and then they win the obj or come for you anyways.
Typically, if a side has an advantage, then they should push that advantage with aggressive play, and if they’re behind they should stall till they get an advantage with defensive play.
I’ve ended games before getting stacked on azmo by pushing aggressively and overwhelming the enemy structures: if most cases, structures don’t heal, so aggressive is generally rewarded more than defensive play.
On the other hand, I’ve had games lost on zul’jin, nazeebo, etc because the allied side weren’t curbing their own aggression to stall for specific talent power spikes. In recent memory, the team kept diving in and diving in again a mage-heavy team instead of waiting for 13 and getting spell shield talents.
Aggressive plays are more visibly rewarded, so there’s a lot of false-positive there that can teach and reinforce the wrong things.
Defensive plays may try to mitigate damage from a lost objective, so compared to pulling more farm in LoL or DotA, it can be that much harder for players to ascertain value from playing defensively – which is not to be confused with passively.
Depends on comp. I’ve played a lot of games where the only option was to be defensive and let your pusher push their lane as hard as possible (and in late game, help them push to core). Especially when your team has very mediocre DPS output in Quick Match.
I generally find the aggro team to win the match though. They always manage to snatch up 1 or 2 kills during objectives and it turns the tide of the game decisively. Even the defensive side can’t ignore objectives all the time.
Rule of Thumb better take a fight when behind and have a slim chance of making a comeback than no fight at a all this only applys for desperate situations (e.g. 3lvls behind, boss/obj that ends the game if not contested or something similiar).
I think aggro is better it just sometimes a little too aggro might make you end up throwing or getting baited. Happens for the best of us. This is where Reactive comes in play.
I’m overall more like an aggressive player, but if your allies are defensive/passive, you’ll just feed, so in those cases I back down. But I prefer when my team actives the ttrpg-esque murderhobo mode. Proactive plays -if executed properly- build up momentum, while defenisve play just negates the enemy’s.
