|
|
Post by asmo on Aug 23, 2012 3:58:18 GMT 2
i later said the mid-level players like yourself care a lot more about this than the top players. I can't speak for everyone but I have no problem with the mwc format when there are a decent amount of teams like 16+...and this is very doable if people would actually encourage people to come back for mwc more than just send 1 lousy e-mail without offering them a team. 4/6 teams I have put together during mwc have consisted of more than half a roster of players that would have not played in mwc otherwise so I know there is a lot more that can be done to have a better quality mwc |
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 4:16:36 GMT 2
ooo myrk shows his face again
exactly my point, cacra wasn't close to being a finals contending team and we got 8th. so only 7 teams were better. of those 7, how many actually had a legitimate shot at the finals? that means there is like 80 teams that were complete shit. sounds like a great tournament. And today we have 3 final contending teams, not too different from back then.
i never said or suggested others didn't have shitty internet connections. actually that is a great point too, almost everyone had shitty internet connections. AOL was the big ISP of the day with 14.4k dial up modem connections. and yet we are to believe all the players back then could still play better than they could today when now almost everyone has broadband.
Yea there is a difference between good players making shitty plays and shitty players who blatantly have no idea what they are doing. 20% defense including archers guarding the flag on desert ctf in an mwc finals match is something you won't see anymore today, yet you could see it back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratking on Aug 23, 2012 4:38:28 GMT 2
My god how did we get so off topic?
TLDFR LOL
If no one cares we get drunken, then cool. If not I guess things stay the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 7:52:33 GMT 2
I like how myrk ignores the fact that he had arguably the worst performance in mwc finals history against a gkg team.
|
|
|
|
Post by myrk on Aug 23, 2012 9:10:12 GMT 2
exactly my point, cacra wasn't close to being a finals contending team and we got 8th. so only 7 teams were better. of those 7, how many actually had a legitimate shot at the finals? that means there is like 80 teams that were complete shit. sounds like a great tournament. And today we have 3 final contending teams, not too different from back then. Obviously the majority of teams sucked since with a larger player base there were more crappy players and raid/ww2 unimappers. I'll agree that only a few teams had a chance at making the finals, because that would have required being able to beat NP or AF and most other teams didn't have the player talent or teamwork to keep up with either of them. Since the current top teams are around the Cacra level of skill, I'd bet the mwc12 winners would place around 8 too if they had a time machine to 2001 and didn't have to fight the better teams too early. Yea there is a difference between good players making shitty plays and shitty players who blatantly have no idea what they are doing. 20% defense including archers guarding the flag on desert ctf in an mwc finals match is something you won't see anymore today, yet you could see it back then. You also don't have scoring systems today that let you win a game by contesting a flag with ghols. i never said or suggested others didn't have shitty internet connections. actually that is a great point too, almost everyone had shitty internet connections. AOL was the big ISP of the day with 14.4k dial up modem connections. and yet we are to believe all the players back then could still play better than they could today when now almost everyone has broadband. Today's mythers get less lag and the game was patched to be made easier to play, that doesn't make them more skilled. |
|
|
|
Post by waywardone on Aug 23, 2012 11:12:19 GMT 2
Your obsession is blinding you, or you'd remember the argument I made when NC was peaking, because now you've constrained yourself to forever play this game, lest someone else spend 10 years practicing and steal your crown. What if someone plays for another 8 years, masters all the old techniques and invents a new one or two? Is this the best era because you're in it, or is his the best because it's more "evolved"?
None of the top 3 or 5 (out of 80+) teams ever had even close to 20% of the top players because that tenth percentile was bigger than the entire active player base of the last 5 years. Now look at your teams (at least the ones you want to hoist up). The best players are congregated onto dwindling numbers of teams instead of maintaining earlier distributions. How many in '06, 7 teams? '07, 4? '08, 3. From there you can debate the finer point of going from 3 teams to the 2 we have now.
More than that, though, look at a situation like Phil Jackson. Was he a great coach, or was it inevitable he'd have success since his players included 3, possibly 4 HoFers? If you knew how bad Cirque actually was, you'd be embarassed that you got 8th while Cirque got 5th. Were you trying? Because they sure as hell weren't. Same thing with Sabre. Same thing with any of the other chill bros I played with. MWC used to be QR = regular season, DE = playoffs. Now it's just the all-star weekend. All the best (mostly) on 2 teams, and the rest get their own freshman/sophomore game.
You don't care? Who else is talking about care or plastering billboards about 4+ year old topics that no one else is concerned with? You know you can't tweak my pride, so any baiting just looks like a distraction. But you? I seriously worry for you. I'm not saying that to be condescending, or hope haters jump on the bandwagon for me. How can you analyze the game so easily and not be able to turn that critical eye on your own arguments?
It's strange. When I used to talk with (musician/drummer) friends, our top 5's were very similar unless one was just hardcore into a genre and myopic. But we never even considered wasting time trying to nail down for sure whether Peart was better than Bonham, or whether Copeland qualified as underrated. No one would dream of putting down Rich or Krupa.
The contrast is when posers and hobby musicians get involved. Those are the ones who can't sleep at night without "their guy" being enshrined as the undisputed best. Those are also the ones who memorize band rosters but wouldn't be able to tell a lineup change just by listening.
|
|
|
|
Post by rambone on Aug 23, 2012 15:22:52 GMT 2
Both tournaments are certainly welcomed and possibly neccesary for myths future. Talking about how great you are or were is as gay as anything. Is the play better now or then? Gay. Is hockey better now than it was so amny years ago? Well, I'd say it was different, same as myth.
Most of the arguments made here are self serving, at best. There are 2 people here that are arguing to better something than themselves or to belittle some other.
The more players we have the better for everyone playing and every tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 15:26:01 GMT 2
im not sure why you keep making this about me, wwo. if i was a 2-3 baller right now with no tournament wins I would still make the same arguments. as you can see there are others in this thread that share the same point of view on it as me. not sure why you are sounding somewhat butthurt about this conversation. yes its my obsession bro, my duty to bring it up whenever i can, and i care so much.
btw I never argued that today is the most competitive and skilled, only that very early on the skill was *cruisering* horrible compared to today. most people that would agree with me would probably say that around 2006 was the height of competitiveness and skill in mwc. and I didn't even play in that mwc.
why would i be embarrassed about that? i was 15 years old in 2001, playing on terrible internet. I sucked back then and I freely embrace it. Whoopdidoo. You still didn't mention what team you were on that year. which one was it and what did you place at?
you argue about team composition, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual skill of then vs now. yes there was more players back then. but as I just illustrated (and myrk agreed) in mwc2001 there was still only a few finals-contending teams and now there is still only a few finals-contending teams. there was 16 player team rosters back then and now just 8, which is part of that, but that doesn't really matter when you can only play 8. btw you were talking about roster filler on the top teams back then but looking at players that NP and AF fielded to actually play in their finals it doesn't look like any roster filler there to me.
no1 is arguing about the activity or size of the community back then, just about the actual skill differences.
at myrk: I didn't realize that my most recent mwc championship teams were about the same skill as my cacra team in mwc2k1. I guess I really haven't improved at all in those 11 years and even with my much better internet. good thing you would know that I was about the same quality player after all this years, even better than I would know. thanks
lag doesn't change the potential level of skill a player could achieve, but it does handicap their actual play. so yes it does decrease the quality of the play, not sure how you can argue that.
don't care about the contesting ghol on a ctf flag or about the minor patch changes over the years. not sure what that has to do with anything. I assume you are talking about the melee change, which really didn't matter that much. if you think there is no skill in melee anymore, then feel free to come melee me sometime.
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 16:13:42 GMT 2
I was on gtm we placed ahead of cacra... and I was roster filler lol (and yes i know you were addressing wwo).
Side note.... I feel the word competitive is used instead of prestige in these discussions far too often. the word prestige is open to far less interpretation. Winning tournaments back in the day offered much more prestige. Even a 8th place in mwc back then was probably more prestigious than winning one now.
|
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 16:49:44 GMT 2
how much play time did you get honkey, especially in the DE rounds? I always wonders how some players got any play time at all with 16 player rosters.
I would say of course it was more prestigious, I don't think quite as much as you say though. pretty sure I feel much better about my 3 mwc wins, multiple winter tourney wins, and not having lost a single team tournament since mwc2008 than my 8th place in mwc2k1.
more competitive than now, sure I will give them that. Not by much though, the mwc2k1 finals wasn't really close. I also still think 2006 was the peak of competitiveness and maybe even care.
what I was of course strictly talking about though was just the raw skill and intelligence for the game. I think people are confusing other things such as competitiveness and prestige with just actual skill, which is completely different.
|
|
pogue
Forum elite
Posts: 642
|
Post by pogue on Aug 23, 2012 17:49:28 GMT 2
|
|
|
|
Post by waywardone on Aug 23, 2012 18:26:33 GMT 2
im not sure why you keep making this about me, wwo. if i was a 2-3 baller right now with no tournament wins I would still make the same arguments. as you can see there are others in this thread that share the same point of view on it as me. not sure why you are sounding somewhat butthurt about this conversation. yes its my obsession bro, my duty to bring it up whenever i can, and i care so much. You just cannot seem to put anything in context. It's about you because you're the flag-bearer for a topic only you really want to bring up. I do it because I enjoy arguing even if my stance is not quite oppositional. Anyone in this thread would agree with you? This is Bonky-level retardedness. Anyone bothering to churn up the waters now -- a mwc forum 11+ years after any disputed fact -- is likely to share the same biases as you. This is reasoning 101. And what does baller status have to do with anything? This is like saying the pool of generals must only come from people with top-tier rifle and hand-to-hand skills. I agreed with this the first time it was ever brought up. Even before, I said any current era team or player would destroy and early era team or player. It's hard to argue if you take points not in dispute and mention them like they are. So you're saying people that agree with you would agree with you? That statement is just so asinine I feel like I'm picking on you. Great question. Who's embarassed about a video game? It's hard to even fathom it. You're really projecting here. I was perpetually stoned and playing on shitty internet, too, but my god, I wouldn't try to use it as a shield 10+ years after the fact. Who is AF? Other than that, this is your best paragraph so far. (Totally tangential: Even among teams with 16 player rosters, a TON of matches were played with no more than 5 or 6.) Yeah, and we already agreed on it years ago. I've forgotten wtf we're arguing about with all this chaff thrown up. Also, don't put everyone that opposes you in the same pool. I could've argued against Myrk, too, but you had that covered. [edited for kindness] |
|
|
|
Post by giantkillergeneral on Aug 23, 2012 18:59:22 GMT 2
ok well several of your comments you just completely misread what I wrote.
for example you just turned:
into:
also in response to:
I said:
which you now turned it into:
you just said I should be embarrassed bro. so wtf are you saying now. i'm totally projecting yo.
When I said:
I will clarify it for you as such:
make better sense now? yea, you are so totally picking on me
AF = Angry Face (hence the context AF vs NP in the mwc2k1 finals)
i'm so glad to have your review and approval of my writing. you and aki would probably get along great irl.
why are you still dodging my question about what team you were on in mwc2k1 and what did you place at? WHAT TEAM WERE YOU ON?
I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore either. I was arguing the skill then vs now, nothing more than that, and apparently you were arguing something else. You say that debate was settled years ago but players such as myrk, flatline, tirri, etc. still cling to it and I enjoy debating it with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by honkey on Aug 23, 2012 20:29:59 GMT 2
I played in meaningful matches in numerous tournaments we just had a certain rotation. For the non heavy hitters and it was map dependant as well ( i almost always played dark) I also had terrible Internet and had high school sports on weekends etc so I wasn't super committed. But yes I played in de in similar roles to the ones I still do. Although unit mixes now are a lot smarter. In fact we won every game I ever played in vs np which was about 3 lol
|
|
|
|
Post by flatline on Aug 24, 2012 4:48:50 GMT 2
LOL
I do love me a 2k1 vs post 2k1 thread.
Even if the thread was originally about somethign else. (actually that makes it even funnier).
|
|
