ASC civ stats

[Garja]

Fact is when someone is good in mechanics is good in the other aspects aswell. It's not like you can discern the various things.

[deleted_user0]

Not entirely true. You can be mechanically perfect but lack any intelligent play, insight, tactical depth etc aka be very predictable and repitious. Kinda like innovation, instead of polt for example.

I dont get the preference of pure macro/micro over creativity, strategical and psychological exploitation and tricky play. Both have their beauty, strengths and weaknesses. But maybe im biased because im a gambler.

Anyway we had this discussion many times and we will never agree, but imo the winners of the last few tournaments show that mental fortitude and the ability to throw off ur opponent by taking risks are traits that will help you win championships.

[SoldieR]

Ya, Ryan is like the most straight forward player, and maybe that ended up hurting him

[_venox_]

I played a guy rated about 1750 elo that had better mechanics than wickedcossack or other majors I've played, but he just lacked the builds and strategical choices, like colo vs russia. But also Boneng is pr 40 and doesn't have the best micro, but who am i to judge.

[Garja]

Not entirely true. You can be mechanically perfect but lack any intelligent play, insight, tactical depth etc aka be very predictable and repitious. Kinda like innovation, instead of polt for example.

I dont get the preference of pure macro/micro over creativity, strategical and psychological exploitation and tricky play. Both have their beauty, strengths and weaknesses. But maybe im biased because im a gambler.

Anyway we had this discussion many times and we will never agree, but imo the winners of the last few tournaments show that mental fortitude and the ability to throw off ur opponent by taking risks are traits that will help you win championships.

Last few tournies didn''t really show much. Blackstar has quite good mechanics and h2o conceded in the MU part, that''s it. And again you can''t discern things. It''s not like if you''re good with mechanics you''re not creative/mindgamer/anything. You''re just that + you have good mechanics.

[deleted_user0]

K whatever garj...

[_H2O]

It's pretty unfair to say I'm not creative because a lot of my stuff is standard now.

This game has lots of tactical depth even in mirrors and I think im well known for doing tech switches and other tactics beyond just unit control. u losing ur vil in age one with Agra was not mechanical at all.

I just don't play strategies that require my opponent to not have experience with my strat to win. I just know that will not win u a best of 9.

I think it was pretty clear I got out cived in every non mirror except the France India one. That one set me up to be counter civ later. That's why non mirrors kinda suck at the highest level. You just simply cannot win if ur out cived

[SoldieR]

Plz boneg is not pr40

[SoldieR]

It''s pretty unfair to say I''m not creative because a lot of my stuff is standard now.

This game has lots of tactical depth even in mirrors and I think im well known for doing tech switches and other tactics beyond just unit control. u losing ur vil in age one with Agra was not mechanical at all.

I just don''t play strategies that require my opponent to not have experience with my strat to win. I just know that will not win u a best of 9.

I think it was pretty clear I got out cived in every non mirror except the France India one. That one set me up to be counter civ later. That''s why non mirrors kinda suck at the highest level. You just simply cannot win if ur out cived

Ya what I mean is you play the most standard, obs type civs and mu''s. I don''t mean disrespect, just that you don''t seem to do QS a lot and in QS you get a lot of random stuff and that creates a more well rounded weird matchup stuff that obs guys tend to not like.

[deleted_user0]

It''s pretty unfair to say I''m not creative because a lot of my stuff is standard now.

This game has lots of tactical depth even in mirrors and I think im well known for doing tech switches and other tactics beyond just unit control. u losing ur vil in age one with Agra was not mechanical at all.

I just don''t play strategies that require my opponent to not have experience with my strat to win. I just know that will not win u a best of 9.

I think it was pretty clear I got out cived in every non mirror except the France India one. That one set me up to be counter civ later. That''s why non mirrors kinda suck at the highest level. You just simply cannot win if ur out cived

Im not saying you are not creative at all. Garja has totally butchered my point into something i never said. I agree with the countercivving part, but there are some mus in which the balance is fair and also some mirrors that alliw for bo counters. I never targeted any specific players, my point was merely that imo coning up with a tailored build to counter your opponent is as valuable a trait as playing to the full potential of the civ by doing the standard (which is standard because its proven the best in most cases)

Ah u were talking to matt

[_H2O]

I do my share of QS. For example the amhaye games was 40 suiox games of qs in 2 days. I agree with you playing QS is important especially if you don't handle weird stuff well. I think QS is how u get better at handling wide range of bs. Because the maps suck and because the players do dumb strats a lot.

People discount Being able to play on those maps and being able to play vs BS.

I just never will do the BS myself. I may take some inspiration from it though. Like using walls in certain ways when I'm ahead

[Garja]

Its pretty unfair to say Im not creative because a lot of my stuff is standard now.

This game has lots of tactical depth even in mirrors and I think im well known for doing tech switches and other tactics beyond just unit control. u losing ur vil in age one with Agra was not mechanical at all.

I just dont play strategies that require my opponent to not have experience with my strat to win. I just know that will not win u a best of 9.

I think it was pretty clear I got out cived in every non mirror except the France India one. That one set me up to be counter civ later. Thats why non mirrors kinda suck at the highest level. You just simply cannot win if ur out cived

Im not saying you are not creative at all. Garja has totally butchered my point into something i never said. I agree with the countercivving part, but there are some mus in which the balance is fair and also some mirrors that alliw for bo counters. I never targeted any specific players, my point was merely that imo coning up with a tailored build to counter your opponent is as valuable a trait as playing to the full potential of the civ by doing the standard (which is standard because its proven the best in most cases)

Ah u were talking to matt

Lol dont blame me, I didnt twist a single word of yours.

[deleted_user0]

Ye u did lol.

[iNcog]

I think that counter civing has a lot to do with the fact that it's very hard to take risks which might get you ahead. look at maru in starcraft and compare that to innovation. they both have the exact same tools however they play differently. it's very hard to "get ahead" with your own strength as a player in this game, i'd argue that player skill is the limiting factor in starcraft, whereas in aoe3 it's the civ / build which is the limitation.

there's no coming back against a guy who sent eco cards first thing vs a guy who sent something like units and wasn't able to capitalize with them. throw into that that certain civs just straight up boom better than other civs and you get this sort of stuff

starcraft's design shines in that the player is the limiting factor, not the civ. at very least, it's easier for raw mechanics to get you somewhere in starcraft than it is in aoe3. raw mechanics in aoe3 can give you an edge but there's no translating that into a win if your build / civ choice was off

[Garja]

Ye u did lol.

Please elaborate.

[WickedCossack]

Define best... Just mechanical skill is a very narrow definition of good. Creativity, audacity, strategical genius and anticipation, these are all championship traits, and they come out better in non-mirror mus

Judging on just mechanical skill is the idra method. It''s dumb as there''s so much more to a game of rts at the top level.

Fact is when someone is good in mechanics is good in the other aspects aswell. It''s not like you can discern the various things.

To some extent sure. But you can still make out a clear distinction in some top players whether their strength is in mechanics or on-the-fly strategy e.g you contrasted with boneng.

Ofc a true beast of a player will excel in all aspects.

[deleted_user0]

Ye u did lol.

Please elaborate.

I cba to argue with u lol. You are still the most pointless person to have a pointless discussion with. Though legend came close but no sigar.

[MCJim]

This reminds me of a heavy discussion on the official AoE forums as well

[iNcog]

lol that can't be right

[Garja]

Please elaborate.

I cba to argue with u lol. You are still the most pointless person to have a pointless discussion with. Though legend came close but no sigar.

As it turned, you have no arguments.

Define best... Just mechanical skill is a very narrow definition of good. Creativity, audacity, strategical genius and anticipation, these are all championship traits, and they come out better in non-mirror mus

Judging on just mechanical skill is the idra method. Its dumb as theres so much more to a game of rts at the top level.

Fact is when someone is good in mechanics is good in the other aspects aswell. Its not like you can discern the various things.

To some extent sure. But you can still make out a clear distinction in some top players whether their strength is in mechanics or on-the-fly strategy e.g you contrasted with boneng.

Ofc a true beast of a player will excel in all aspects.

I still beg to differ that what people call skills are in fact just player biases.

[WickedCossack]

I still beg to differ that what people call skills are in fact just player biases.

I don''t quite get what you mean by biases ?

Are you suggesting everyone has the same "creativity, audacity, strategical genius and anticipation" as umeu put it ? For instance when playing vs a strat you have never seen before some players are just better than others at adapting to that on the spot in a critical game, that''s a skill. Or even just comming up with strategies/playstyle, some players come up with lots and others don''t.

[Garja]

I'm saying that those aspects are arguably a skill since they're not clearly measurable. All of them are romantic words to describe either a lucky strike or correct application of knowledge. And since the same player, credited of such characteristics, usually has mixed results, it's hard to distinguish the two. Hence they're not really skills.

[deleted_user0]

I never called them skills. I delibirately called them traits, though talents would do. But no garja never butchers someones words...

Anyway you are the type of person that doesnt understand flamboyance and charisma. You approach it purely technical and forget were humans, not machines.

[Garja]

I wasn't talking to you but to Adam who in fact called them skills. And not I'm not machine thinker or anything, I'm just objective. You on the other end seems bit too romantic when talking about this stuff.