TAO Top 100

[The Professor]

Playing as an alt is stupid. Well actually it's pretty fun, but it's stupid for this debate.

It's just such an unfair advantage. I had this conversation with Cua awhile back but basically it boiled down to this; knowing your opponent allows you to try strategies that are more effective while he/she has to be more conservative (depending on player). I'm not going to do certain things against an unknown since it could be strategically catastrophic.

That's why I never considered you/Guide/whoever to be great. Oh you got your wins in, especially on me here and there. But considering the advantage you had, or should of had, it's really surprising you weren't more dominant. Especially considering all the time played perfecting sets and strategies.

Also, as far as comparing somebody like Vish to older players, it's probably not accurate. I've played Vish a couple of times and his skill is more from repetition than true creative skill. Just like older players sometimes inflate their memories, so do newer players arrogantly believe they are the best for perfecting strategies and styles that have evolved since.

[Blasphemy]

It's just such an unfair advantage.

his skill is more from repetition than true creative skill.

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.

[|AFO|]

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.

[Blasphemy]

I've played Vish a couple of times and his skill is more from repetition than true creative skill.

Vish was never good.

I just used Vish as an example of an average skilled player like Cekkino or Burnout, and you guys blast him. Haha, savage.

[|AFO|]

I just used Vish as an example of an average skilled player like Cekkino or Burnout, and you guys blast him. Haha, savage.

You implied that he could compete with top old school players. He would have a very hard time. Likewise with Cekkino and Burnout. I like both of them, but they shouldn't be in this conversation. Honestly, you mentioning these players really devalues your argument.

[Aristocatt]

Playing as an alt is stupid. Well actually it's pretty fun, but it's stupid for this debate.

It's just such an unfair advantage. I had this conversation with Cua awhile back but basically it boiled down to this; knowing your opponent allows you to try strategies that are more effective while he/she has to be more conservative (depending on player). I'm not going to do certain things against an unknown since it could be strategically catastrophic.

That's why I never considered you/Guide/whoever to be great. Oh you got your wins in, especially on me here and there. But considering the advantage you had, or should of had, it's really surprising you weren't more dominant. Especially considering all the time played perfecting sets and strategies.

Also, as far as comparing somebody like Vish to older players, it's probably not accurate. I've played Vish a couple of times and his skill is more from repetition than true creative skill. Just like older players sometimes inflate their memories, so do newer players arrogantly believe they are the best for perfecting strategies and styles that have evolved since.

Wait creativity is something we are measuring here???
Don't I get any points for Furgon Antis, Dragonless Berz rushes, and DSM Stone golem antis with 1 scout, Dragonless Berz/BR turtles, etc?

I was never really great at the game, but I'll be damned if I wasn't the most unorthodox.

Edit: I more or less made the exact same post years ago.