Beating Russia with French...

[Goodspeed]

Keep in mind there were no good players active when Darwin was. Pretty easy to overrate him.. The problem is not that no one plays good rus, it's that people know how to deal with them now

[Nymphomaniac]

it''s that people know how to deal with them now

People on this thread don''t seem to agree with u.

[deleted_user0]

Keep in mind there were no good players active when Darwin was. Pretty easy to overrate him.. The problem is not that no one plays good rus, it''s that people know how to deal with them now

Fre should beat rus on land, on tad. But i also think some people including you and ryan and erik rate russia''s potential low. And im pretty sure that there is alot about this civ which can be explored. Current russia players have to catch up with the tp meta as well

Also its irrelevant that darwins elo was overrated, what matters is that there is no one who knows this civ anymore since his departure. Atleast thats what i think

[Goodspeed]

The civ isn't all that complex, we tested it plenty. If you don't exploit its weaknesses (which Darwin's opponents weren't) the civ is quite strong, but if you do then you find out Russia loses most match ups.

[Garja]

Ye, stop the Darwin bash. The guy played since 2006 (so he has some game knowledge) and reached 2800 with Russia (gl doing that). And he know all the shit about the civ, like he could do any sort strat on any map. And mechanically he wasn't bad, atleast in the last year or so that he played.
That game on NE vs Alwasim was actually a gg. Alwasim didi the Sam build I think with 700w 3 huss to push out and break the fb. And Darwin comes back with water and usual Russia cost-efficient play. Also it shows how good Russia is in lategame with CA+opris etc.

[princeofkabul]

Ye, stop the Darwin bash. The guy played since 2006 (so he has some game knowledge) and reached 2800 with Russia (gl doing that). And he know all the shit about the civ, like he could do any sort strat on any map. And mechanically he wasn''t bad, atleast in the last year or so that he played.
That game on NE vs Alwasim was actually a gg. Alwasim didi the Sam build I think with 700w 3 huss to push out and break the fb. And Darwin comes back with water and usual Russia cost-efficient play. Also it shows how good Russia is in lategame with CA+opris etc.

+1

[Goodspeed]

Ye, stop the Darwin bash. The guy played since 2006 (so he has some game knowledge) and reached 2800 with Russia (gl doing that). And he know all the shit about the civ, like he could do any sort strat on any map. And mechanically he wasn''t bad, atleast in the last year or so that he played.
That game on NE vs Alwasim was actually a gg. Alwasim didi the Sam build I think with 700w 3 huss to push out and break the fb. And Darwin comes back with water and usual Russia cost-efficient play. Also it shows how good Russia is in lategame with CA+opris etc.

Darwin bash? I''m saying his opponents weren''t very good so him being 2800 with Russia is no proof that the civ is good. True, it''s no proof that he is good either but that wasn''t my main point ') Thing is you just don''t get to that level with Russia without your opponents messing up consistently.

[deleted_user0]

You are focusing on the wrong thing imo. I never claimed he or russia were good because of the elo. Im neither claiming that on tad russia is an op civ.

But i am claiming that your view on russia is narrow, mainly due to your preference of playing high res, tp available land maps. Excluding thus the entire opposite spectre of scarce res and water maps. Because most people have the same preference i think you are too biased in your conclusion regarding russia and this results i think in a creative blindspot to explore the potential of the civ (you have sonething similar with sioux).

In the end imo russia is one of those civs which is simply used too little to really be compared accurately to other civs. Obviously i havent played in some time so i dont know about the latest tests and such but id be surprised if russia is suddenly figured out. Theoretically the civ has so many advantages that i would find it hard to believe your guides ranking.

[Goodspeed]

playing high res, tp available land maps

I read: balanced maps. And yes, Russia is better on RE maps that's also one of the reasons darwin did so well. Those maps however are history, no one plays them anymore in a competitive environment.

[Garja]

Ye, stop the Darwin bash. The guy played since 2006 (so he has some game knowledge) and reached 2800 with Russia (gl doing that). And he know all the shit about the civ, like he could do any sort strat on any map. And mechanically he wasnt bad, atleast in the last year or so that he played.
That game on NE vs Alwasim was actually a gg. Alwasim didi the Sam build I think with 700w 3 huss to push out and break the fb. And Darwin comes back with water and usual Russia cost-efficient play. Also it shows how good Russia is in lategame with CA+opris etc.

Darwin bash? Im saying his opponents werent very good so him being 2800 with Russia is no proof that the civ is good. True, its no proof that he is good either but that wasnt my main point ') Thing is you just dont get to that level with Russia without your opponents messing up consistently.

Dude played vs anyone. He played more Russia games than everyone basically. He reached 2800 about when _h2o and nagayumi did. And its not meant to be a proof, its just a fact to support what I already know. I played him myself like 200 times atleast. And he knew his shit about Russia, no need for other evidences really. Did you ever played him? I bet not more than 3-4 times on FP.
And this is a Darwin bash, really cause saying "without your opponents mess up consistently" is just unfair. He would have taken most of games even against you in Russia mirror.

And maps dont really matter either. We played on AS GP atleast 15 games (mostly Aztecs vs Russia), he was the only guy who ever came close to beat me (and he did several times) with Russia besides Blackstar.

[deleted_user0]

You read balance because it conforms to your bias. Obviously maps shouldnt have screws in the sense that one player has 4 mines or hunts and the other only 2 or that they are comparatively unequally placed. But this doesnt mean every map has to have a million hunts so you can defend in base for 30 mins. Scrappy mapcontrol battles at 10min are part of the game too imo, as is water.

And still you are focussing on darwins result instead of on the fact that there currently isnt a pure russia player who knows the civ as well as he did, regardless of how good his opponents were at that time (though the jap com was more active back then so i think you are thinking too little of his opposition, though i entirely agree that his elo doesnt reflects his skill)


maybe mainly because he wasnt as good with other civs and didnt really have a superb unit control because russia is more about macro and tactics

[Goodspeed]

Darwin bash? Im saying his opponents werent very good so him being 2800 with Russia is no proof that the civ is good. True, its no proof that he is good either but that wasnt my main point ') Thing is you just dont get to that level with Russia without your opponents messing up consistently.

Dude played vs anyone. He played more Russia games than everyone basically. He reached 2800 about when _h2o and nagayumi did. And its not meant to be a proof, its just a fact to support what I already know. I played him myself like 200 times atleast. And he knew his shit about Russia, no need for other evidences really. Did you ever played him? I bet not more than 3-4 times on FP.
And this is a Darwin bash, really cause saying "without your opponents mess up consistently" is just unfair. He would have taken most of games even against you in Russia mirror.

Please believe me when I say it wasnt my intention to bash him (also why are you getting so defensive over this?). Im just saying you shouldnt use him as an example because the way his opponents played (and probably the way he played, too) is not representative of the current meta, plus there were very little strong players playing the game back then. Also, like umeu brought to light, the RE maps are much better for Russia than the current maps. And yeah Ive played him on RE patch a bunch of times, mirrors even and didnt lose any. Granted he was rusty but so was I. All irrelevant. Darwin was a good player, its just that Im really not a fan of this whole "He was the only one who understood Russia" BS. Its just not true, Russia is not all that complex.

You read balance because it conforms to your bias. Obviously maps shouldnt have screws in the sense that one player has 4 mines or hunts and the other only 2 or that they are comparatively unequally placed. But this doesnt mean every map has to have a million hunts so you can defend in base for 30 mins. Scrappy mapcontrol battles at 10min are part of the game too imo, as is water.

You realise no one is playing RE maps anymore right? Thanks to Garja we have a balanced map pool now. Its not my personal bias, its common knowledge that RE maps are not balanced.

And still you are focussing on darwins result instead of on the fact that there currently isnt a pure russia player who knows the civ as well as he did, regardless of how good his opponents were at that time (though the jap com was more active back then so i think you are thinking too little of his opposition, though i entirely agree that his elo doesnt reflects his skill)

Im not focusing on anything darwin-related. Someone else brought up the argument that no one understands Russia right now and brought up darwin as proof that they are viable and Im saying thats BS.

[SoldieR]

Okay, I don't know if people are playing russia better now or what, but nowadays it seems very hard for french. Somehow I won my smackdown game vs Aiz (if you watched it was crazy). But is that hat has to be done? Seems extra difficult and a little crazy that you MUST use cdb fighting to win...
On the Darwin thing, ya he was good, but I believe there are people that play russia better now, but last time i played him with 2010:
http://aoe3.jpcommunity.com/rating2/pla ... lent=&ft=1

[Garja]

Darwin got better later tho, especially mechanically. And yes there were good Russia players for sure back then. But now you don't have many, I just can't think of anyone exceot that holy_back_eye guy.

[SoldieR]

I mean that most people now, the higher level players, most can play russia well.

[iNcog]

I have to play RE maps all the time because that's what you play in rated games

they're not even that bad tbh. there are a couple of shit maps like great lakes, NE, indochina, etc, however most of the TAD maps are OK. i prefer garja maps myself and i play them for custom games (for those which don't oos or fail) however if you play ranked you have to go through RE maps and adapt to those.

[deleted_user0]

[quote author="@calmyourtits" source="/post/5755/thread" timestamp="1430063261"][quote source="/post/5753/thread" author="@garja" timestamp="1430059792"]Dude played vs anyone. He played more Russia games than everyone basically. He reached 2800 about when _h2o and nagayumi did. And it's not meant to be a proof, it's just a fact to support what I already know. I played him myself like 200 times atleast. And he knew his shit about Russia, no need for other evidences really. Did you ever played him? I bet not more than 3-4 times on FP.
And this is a Darwin bash, really cause saying "without your opponents mess up consistently" is just unfair. He would have taken most of games even against you in Russia mirror.
[/quote]Please believe me when I say it wasn't my intention to bash him (also why are you getting so defensive over this?). I'm just saying you shouldn't use him as an example because the way his opponents played (and probably the way he played, too) is not representative of the current meta, plus there were very little strong players playing the game back then. Also, like umeu brought to light, the RE maps are much better for Russia than the current maps. And yeah I've played him on RE patch a bunch of times, mirrors even and didn't lose any. Granted he was rusty but so was I. All irrelevant. Darwin was a good player, it's just that I'm really not a fan of this whole "He was the only one who understood Russia" BS. It's just not true, Russia is not all that complex.
[quote source="/post/5754/thread" timestamp="1430060124" author="@umeu"]You read balance because it conforms to your bias. Obviously maps shouldnt have screws in the sense that one player has 4 mines or hunts and the other only 2 or that they are comparatively unequally placed. But this doesnt mean every map has to have a million hunts so you can defend in base for 30 mins. Scrappy mapcontrol battles at 10min are part of the game too imo, as is water.
[/quote]You realise no one is playing RE maps anymore right? Thanks to Garja we have a balanced map pool now. It's not my personal bias, it's common knowledge that RE maps are not balanced.

And still you are focussing on darwins result instead of on the fact that there currently isnt a pure russia player who knows the civ as well as he did, regardless of how good his opponents were at that time (though the jap com was more active back then so i think you are thinking too little of his opposition, though i entirely agree that his elo doesnt reflects his skill)

I'm not focusing on anything darwin-related. Someone else brought up the argument that no one understands Russia right now and brought up darwin as proof that they are viable and I'm saying that's BS.?
[/quote]


I know re maps arent balanced. Im also aware that the tiurney mappool was highly biased towards a specific playstyle and view of the game. Obviously, because most of this effort comes from a small group of players whove all kinda share or came to share the same views. Im not saying garjas maps are bad at all. His effort and results are awesome, but its obvious that for example he is biased towards waterplay and also doesnt like lowres maps without the map being unbalanced. Im not saying it should be badly distributed, just that not every map has to have huge abundance, just enough, before all hell for map control breaks loose. The idea behind rockies for example, i like it, it was just terribly implemented, but i think it was an interesting dynamic. All im saying is that we as you can tell maps are important in allowing what play is viable and we should be careful to avoid that we ban certain styles out due to a bias in maps. Imo a good map pool allows for all styles and civs be played.

I brought up darwin, but never to say russia was viable. Only to say there is no one who knew russia like he did anymore. I might be wrong in this obv. There has been a tourney and lots of practice. So things have changed.

[Garja]

Actually the res abundance was in most cases out of the plan because not many people tested the maps when they were in the making. So resource count was pure theoretical and based on the comparison with the RE maps. All the feedbacks I received were basically one week or so before the tourney start so all the fixes were a bit rushed.



Anyway the bias is way less evident than what people thinks. Water play, for example, is just as good as on RE map counterparts, with the only difference being less whales (which indirectly nerfs the super hardcore water booming because it makes useless to have 30 boats, as it should be).

And hunts or mines on some maps are not as good as people think. For example Hudson bay often has less hunts than Saguenay, and Manchuria, when gold mines are in the middle, essentially gives 3 mines per player only.
Most of RE maps have 11-12 mines, with several maps having 14+. 10-12 was the par for my maps.
While the par for hunts was essentially a bit more than RE average map just to have longer games (goal that was successfully achieved).


And that's for the maps used in the tourney. The other maps not included in the tourney pool were more biased toward either water play or resource shortage. Also new maps will be a bit more unique in how they evolve.



Also, when you say that a map pool should allow for all playstyle you're basically saying that each map should have a clear best way to be played and thus a clear best civ. I don't think that's necessarily good, especially if maps are made for standard play and not just for events.

Besides all of this and inherently to Russia, custom maps are generally very good for Russia.

[Goodspeed]

Also, when you say that a map pool should allow for all playstyle you''re basically saying that each map should have a clear best way to be played and thus a clear best civ. I don''t think that''s necessarily good, especially if maps are made for standard play and not just for events.

This is a very important point. Multiple civs and styles should be viable on the same map.

[deleted_user0]

Well i phrased myself wrong then, because i meant what you are saying now. Maps should allow fot diff styles to be played. And thus a good pool will allow for all styles i think.

[princeofkabul]

Ye, stop the Darwin bash. The guy played since 2006 (so he has some game knowledge) and reached 2800 with Russia (gl doing that). And he know all the shit about the civ, like he could do any sort strat on any map. And mechanically he wasnt bad, atleast in the last year or so that he played.
That game on NE vs Alwasim was actually a gg. Alwasim didi the Sam build I think with 700w 3 huss to push out and break the fb. And Darwin comes back with water and usual Russia cost-efficient play. Also it shows how good Russia is in lategame with CA+opris etc.

Darwin bash? Im saying his opponents werent very good so him being 2800 with Russia is no proof that the civ is good. True, its no proof that he is good either but that wasnt my main point ') Thing is you just dont get to that level with Russia without your opponents messing up consistently.

What do you mean by good players? You claim that every guy darwin played sucked? like Garja,Umeu,Spadel,Boneng,Naga? and many more. seriously..

[Goodspeed]

Darwin bash? Im saying his opponents werent very good so him being 2800 with Russia is no proof that the civ is good. True, its no proof that he is good either but that wasnt my main point ') Thing is you just dont get to that level with Russia without your opponents messing up consistently.

What do you mean by good players? You claim that every guy darwin played sucked? like Garja,Umeu,Spadel,Boneng,Naga? and many more. seriously..

Actually not that many more, which is the important part. The competitive community was pretty dead when he was active. Of course that doesnt mean there werent good players, just a lot less than, for example, now. This is the kind of thing where you go by the average, prince. You dont get to hand pick the best players of that time and tell me Im saying they suck when Im not, but nice try.

[Garja]

Actually there were more active good players 2-3 years ago.

[Goodspeed]

Naw

[deleted_user0]

I didnt play darwin much tbh. I do miss the dude tho. He was always fun