Slay has no defense. you cant get around it other than avoiding that person like the plague and hope they fall into a deathtrap. You cannot devise a situation in which you can win. Ever.


Playing to win means doing everything you can *with the skillset available to the game*

Some classes simply arent built to engage in mass slaughter.

If there was a CF tournament, you got to pick a lvl 51 perfect skills character, and were forced into a 1v1 cage match, *no one would pick a healer.*

Does this mean you shouldnt play a healer in the real game? No, but you realize you wont be topping the overall pk hall of fame.

If your goal is to butcher everyone in that 1v1 cage match, however, you *should* pick that class you feel has the best chance of winning, and you *should* use the moves that have the highest chance of winning. Doing anything less is not playing to win.

Doing ANYTHING less than picking the character and tactics you feel will get you 1st place is the same as playing a healer with every flaw in the game. That is to say that you're playing to win, or not playing to win. Period.

Now, realistically, not everyone wants to play emperor/chancellor lich that uses every phylactery for every fight. I say to myself, I want to do the best I can with fire giant sword spec, using the best tactics for that character. Or, I want to do the best I can as a healer with every flaw. The limits of the characters are much, much lower, but one should still be using the tactics that have the highest chance of winning, even if that chance never goes above 1%, or 0%.

Realistically, if you're using a sub-optimal build, you can still be playing to win, but if you are using sub-optimal tactics, you are being a scrub, and have no right to bitch.