> 2533274805075298;13:
> I want to highlight this as it assumes this post is made from the OP having poor experiences.
I was just using “you” in the general sense, not as in “you, the OP”. I didn’t assume anything but was mainly given a counter argument to the example given in the OP.
> 2533274805075298;13:
> I do want to say that absolutely everything should be counterable, or be able to be reacted to accordingly. I’m not saying you should stop a tank shot by timing a parry, that’s stupid. What I am saying is that you should absolutely be able to neutralize a superior threat by outmaneuvering it, EG: Boarding/Hijacking.
No, everything doesn’t need a counter. You don’t just end up in a situation where an opponent is standing next to you ready to melee you. A series of choices led you down the path that ended in that situation. Any of those choices could’ve been different, you could’ve prevented the situation before it occured. Same goes for standing in the sights of a tank, but for some reason here you seem to accept that you don’t need to have a way out of that situation.
The key here is that I said not every attack needs a counter, because there are ways of ensuring that the opponent doesn’t get to use that attack. You don’t need to be able to deflect the shot from a tank in order to destroy one. What you do to destroy it is you find position where it can’t hit you in the first place. The tank itself can be outmaneuverable, but this does not mean that its attacks have to have a counter. There can exist a counter strategy to destroy a tank without there existing a defensive method to counter the attacks of a tank.
The confusion here arises because “counter” is a very broad term and it’s being used in two different senses here. When we talk about outmaneuvering a tank, we are talking about a proactively coming up with an overall strategy (a counter strategy, if you will) with which we go against the tank. When we talk about countering a melee attack, we are talking about reactively performing a single move (a counter attack) to nullify the effects of an attack. Even though both can be called counters, they are two drastically different things; one is a strategy, the other is a reaction. One is proactive, the other is reactive.
Reactive actions are often not interesting because they are easy. It takes much more mental effort to not end up in a situation where an opponent melees you than it takes to press a button to dodge said melee attack. Therefore not having the ability to dodge the melee attack means that you will have to play smarter to succeed. That’s not to say mental effort is the only thing that counts. You can have counters to attacks, but those counters should still be difficult enough that you’d rather not want to end up in the situation in the first place. For example, I think at least in Halo 3 you could snipe grenades while they were in the air. But it’s so difficult that if you manage to snipe a plasma grenade before it hits you, you pretty much deserve it. So, if an attack does have a counter, it needs to be really difficult to pull off or else there is no point in having the attack. However, by no means does the attack need to have a counter.