I am annoyed by team game players, once the match found screen is shown, instantly pick pocket colours, without letting others react. They pick pocket whenever they can, even if using an archer civ like britons and ethiopian, that happens so often. And mostly they just proceed to wall up their own base, make a few spearman and FC.
Pocket is considered to be safer? Or they just trying to avoid fighting and boom, maybe that’s the entire reason why they play team game? To have someone on the flank working as a meat shield buffer so that they don’t get attacked.
Is it so difficult to realise if flank dies pocket dies too. Pocket requires more map awareness and need to place more farms, also need some cav dancing skills, balance of eco and army production, it is just as difficult or even more difficult to play than flank.
Players chose pocket cause when you win you can claim the win (cause pockets can carry with higher eco) and if you lose you can blame the flank for collapsing.
It’s that easy, why so many want to play pocket.
Pocket is safer for af booming, which some players like a lot. If their Flank dies and they lose the game, they usually still had a way better time athan Flank, because tanking 1v2 is rarely giving a good time.
Because if previous reason, pocket is also safer teamfighting at lower ELOs. If you are flank and your pocket is not communicating, you should probably turtle and have a bad time. If you are Pocket, you are sure that it will be a 2v2 if you do not want to afk boom.
Pocket is cavalry, and I think people like plsying cavalry more than archers.
Pocket is probably considered cooler, because as a cavalry player you often have to boom to sustain cavalry production, compared to the Flank who relies on timings and cannot be everywhere. So in the end, the pocket is often the “big carry” with higher score, which would make more players feel better.
For the last point, I remember one of the first pro games I watched. It was a 3v3 with Suomi, and the casters were praizing Themax as a pocket for flooding the map with Paladins and win the game, even though he basically leftvhis teamates dyingbhalf of the game. It didnt feel satisfying for me even though I could imagine that it was the best wayvfir his team to win…
But I agree with what you say: both Pocket and Flank should be equally hard: you cannot just chill because you get an “easy position”. In both cases you should do what you can to win (if possible without giving your teamates a bad time).
Even worse at a lot of TG tourneys some of the casters and watchers complained about that the flanks would be too “decisive” in deciding the outcomes of the games. Which is jut natural, as they are the ones that have to do most of the “dirty” defensive work. Ofc the team with the flank that can withstand the most has higher win chances cause it enables the pockets to boom way more freely and “carry” from there.
I wish there would be better tools to put pressure on the pockets so they can’t just boom and spam palas that easy anymore and also need to ask their flanks for help when pressured, this would make it way more balanced between the two roles.
pocket is more stresful in the sense that the pocket plays for himself and his flank’s survival al the same time. He might even have to abandon his side all together and go to the other side to not loose all the game. Its a very stresful position, requires responsability and know how. A bad pocket is always at fault is the game was lost, not the flanks.
You can’t wake up noobs while the pros already knew because what you said can only apply to elo 1400+.
Low elo games are completely different because 1v2 isnt hard at all. Playing as pocket is also a lazy mode to avoid civ disadvantages and dirty strategies which are not rely on player skill too much.
In 4v4 games, I still prefer pocket even though I have to 1v2. I can push forward and use extra gold and stone instead of competing with the other pocket.