Quote Originally Posted by Blasphemy View Post
You complain about an unfair advantage, but yet you think true creative skill existed. It didn't.
The game is built a certain way: 2 scouts, 3 knights, cleric etc. The repetitive strategy is evident in everyone because players took advantage of repetitive sets.
The Anti has been the normal set used by the top players for the longest time.
I remember back in 2008, people would get angry at me for using a DSM. They would even request before a game start, "No DSM". Some players would call you a pussy for using a DSM. These players were simply bad at making sets, and only knew how to use the Anti.
Strategy became repetitive because the sets sucked. Newer players became better and better and better at perfecting the Strategic Rush. "position mud golem" "position scouts" "kill cleric" "pull back until victory".
To win games, creative strategy was not needed.
Newer players simply became better at rushing than old players.
The difference between knowing who your opponent is and not is huge. Using the "i played on a secondary when the game was active!" argument is silly. Also, the anti was still a legitimate set against the dsm spread. Normal games devolved into mostly dsm due to the pace of the game increasing. I'd argue that my mid-game was better than most, giving me that one or two turns advantage into the end game. Just like in chess, the mid-game is where creativity comes into play. Opening moves and closing strategies can be memorized, but mid-game is where you can separate yourself. That's why Vish was never good. He only knew the beginning and the end. If you played slightly unconventionally against him he did not fair well.