ESOCommunity

Mitoe wrote:

bwinner1 wrote:

Show hidden quotes

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

diarouga is the only player that makes me feel the same like what samwise has described for grunt and H2O. When I green up a game vs him, I already know I will lose 100%. I am obviously much lower than other top players as well, but when I play vs kaiser, mitoe or raphael, I know that if I play at my very best lvl (like could happend 1 time out of 20 games) I might very well win, while vs diarouga I will always get rekt no matter what. I have only played like 2-3 games vs H20/bsop so maybe it would be the same vs them. I anyway remind that in 2016 diarouga was shitting on everyone including H2O.

BO101 let's go?

Well diarouga would 50-0 me for sure in a BO101 if he wanted to play that seriously, while you wouldn't for sure. (you would still shit very hard on me though :p)

lol

lol

1.Garja
2.Marco1698
3.lucailgrande

Mitoe wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:I have a serious request: could someone knowledgeable cast / recast one or two of the recs with the old pros for the ESOC channel? Sort of a feature episode, describing what the game was like back then, what was it that they were doing, why was that good, or just show some insane mechanics.
@Mitoe maybe? or @Kaiserklein

About a year ago I was thinking about doing a mini-documentary on AoE3 WCG 2007 & 2008; still have a lot of the stuff I was going to use (clips and recs mostly) saved somewhere. Sadly laziness and the unwillingness to invest money & time into figuring out how to use some solid video editing software have kinda killed the idea, though (remember a certain German guide anyone?).

Could we pitch towards a fundraiser of some-sort to make this happen?

Since I watched many YouTube videos;

LordRaphael, H2O - Aizamk,Hazza , kynesie

I really like LordRaphel's micro and kynesie's walling style

gryphoon94 wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

Imperial Noob wrote:I have a serious request: could someone knowledgeable cast / recast one or two of the recs with the old pros for the ESOC channel? Sort of a feature episode, describing what the game was like back then, what was it that they were doing, why was that good, or just show some insane mechanics.
@Mitoe maybe? or @Kaiserklein

About a year ago I was thinking about doing a mini-documentary on AoE3 WCG 2007 & 2008; still have a lot of the stuff I was going to use (clips and recs mostly) saved somewhere. Sadly laziness and the unwillingness to invest money & time into figuring out how to use some solid video editing software have kinda killed the idea, though (remember a certain German guide anyone?).

Could we pitch towards a fundraiser of some-sort to make this happen?

I'd throw some money that way

bwinner1 wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

Show hidden quotes

bwinner1 wrote:

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

diarouga is the only player that makes me feel the same like what samwise has described for grunt and H2O. When I green up a game vs him, I already know I will lose 100%. I am obviously much lower than other top players as well, but when I play vs kaiser, mitoe or raphael, I know that if I play at my very best lvl (like could happend 1 time out of 20 games) I might very well win, while vs diarouga I will always get rekt no matter what. I have only played like 2-3 games vs H20/bsop so maybe it would be the same vs them. I anyway remind that in 2016 diarouga was shitting on everyone including H2O.

BO101 let's go?

Well diarouga would 50-0 me for sure in a BO101 if he wanted to play that seriously, while you wouldn't for sure. (you would still shit very hard on me though :p)

im pretty sure he would. but anyways being able to 50 -0 someone while another goes 49-1 means pretty much nothing.

lordraphael wrote:

bwinner1 wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Mitoe wrote:

bwinner1 wrote:

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

diarouga is the only player that makes me feel the same like what samwise has described for grunt and H2O. When I green up a game vs him, I already know I will lose 100%. I am obviously much lower than other top players as well, but when I play vs kaiser, mitoe or raphael, I know that if I play at my very best lvl (like could happend 1 time out of 20 games) I might very well win, while vs diarouga I will always get rekt no matter what. I have only played like 2-3 games vs H20/bsop so maybe it would be the same vs them. I anyway remind that in 2016 diarouga was shitting on everyone including H2O.

BO101 let's go?

Well diarouga would 50-0 me for sure in a BO101 if he wanted to play that seriously, while you wouldn't for sure. (you would still shit very hard on me though :p)

im pretty sure he would. but anyways being able to 50 -0 someone while another goes 49-1 means pretty much nothing.

100% he wouldn't I think it would be more like from 50-5 to 50-20

bwinner1 wrote:

lordraphael wrote:

Show hidden quotes

bwinner1 wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

bwinner1 wrote:

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

diarouga is the only player that makes me feel the same like what samwise has described for grunt and H2O. When I green up a game vs him, I already know I will lose 100%. I am obviously much lower than other top players as well, but when I play vs kaiser, mitoe or raphael, I know that if I play at my very best lvl (like could happend 1 time out of 20 games) I might very well win, while vs diarouga I will always get rekt no matter what. I have only played like 2-3 games vs H20/bsop so maybe it would be the same vs them. I anyway remind that in 2016 diarouga was shitting on everyone including H2O.

BO101 let's go?

Well diarouga would 50-0 me for sure in a BO101 if he wanted to play that seriously, while you wouldn't for sure. (you would still shit very hard on me though :p)

im pretty sure he would. but anyways being able to 50 -0 someone while another goes 49-1 means pretty much nothing.

100% he wouldn't I think it would be more like from 50-5 to 50-20

id bet money on that honestly. assuming mitoe plays 100 % every game and not fuck around he would win every game.

I feel like I would literally have to uninstall if I go 50-20 vs a major when playing at 100% after how much effort I've put into this game t.t

Mitoe wrote:I feel like I would literally have to uninstall if I go 50-20 vs a major when playing at 100% after how much effort I've put into this game t.t

*lt. colonel

bwinner1 wrote:100% he wouldn't I think it would be more like from 50-5 to 50-20

I think you're being delusional here. No offense but there's literally no way Mitoe would ever drop 2/7th of his games vs you, unless he plays with a touchpad maybe.
Even 50-5 is not realistic, you don't win 10% of your games vs someone basically 10 pr higher than you. In a competitive setting, I'd drop 10% of my games vs a good colonel I think, and same goes for Mitoe. Note that I'm talking about try-harding here, not casual games, but like tourney mindset (and not going for random maps obviously).
Now, dropping a couple games? Yeah can happen to everyone, including diarouga lol. No way you can be sure he would 50-0 you, everyone fucks up sometimes.

Regardless of that, I think the reason why you almost never beat diarouga is because he plays a very safe playstyle, unlike Mitoe and me. Taking risks (like going for a big colo timing push, or rushing, etc) is the best way to lose to someone lower than you, and I think both Mitoe and me do that kind of stuff sometimes, while diarouga just never does.

P.S: to win a BO101, you have to win 51 games.

I can tell when Mitoe tries, and I've never won.

"Hey want to help me warm up for my tourney matches?" = no chance. It's like an anime power level, unleashed. All the little things he spares me when we play casually, are not spared! They also aren't so little. You can't breathe versus a good player, mistakes are consistebtly punished.

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

No I think dick size should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:

Show hidden quotes

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

Well, if that's about aoe3 achievements then yes.

Still, if a guy doesn't play in tournaments but has a 90% win rate against the guy who won the tournaments (I'm not saying this is my case), then he's the best player.

This is obviously true, I don't know why anybody is discussing this.

ovi12 wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

Show hidden quotes

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

Well, if that's about aoe3 achievements then yes.

Still, if a guy doesn't play in tournaments but has a 90% win rate against the guy who won the tournaments (I'm not saying this is my case), then he's the best player.

This is obviously true, I don't know why anybody is discussing this.

I disagree with with it lol. Look at any sport, esport etc and the best team/player is the team/player that consistently performs in tourneys.

Being good on ladder and being good in tournaments are two very similar skills with some key differences separating them.

e.g. Adaptability, creativity, and resiliency on ladder; and preparation, game knowledge, execution, and civ diversity in tournaments.

Being good at one doesn't guarantee being good at the other, although it is likely you will be good at both or pick it up quickly enough. I think results from both are necessary to accurately determine truly great players, but not participating in tournaments doesn't mean someone is not or can't be a great player--it just means there is less data from which to draw that conclusion.

Mitoe wrote:1. Mitoe
2. Cohenski
3. El_Pistolero_
4. Phillnick
5. Amhaye/Stanley_Winston/Straight_Flush
6. @deleted_user4 (could be 5)
7. Mantes
8. Joker
9. iCourt
10. ffej

Honourable mentions: iRush, Norcal, & Namron

Casper Arthur treebeard rullom

What the heck, this thread again.

gibson wrote:

ovi12 wrote:

Show hidden quotes

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Not really.
You claimed above that I didn't deserve to be in the top 10 because I didn't win any major event, but if you look at it closely, the last big ESOC tourney I played in was the 2015 Winter tournament, where I was still quite far from my peak level and where I lost 1-4 to _H2O who then beat raphael 5-0.
Of course I am not in the top 10 aoe3 tournament players of all time, but you can't measure how good I am from tournament results.

What point are you trying to make? You can be a pugger and win qs and unrated 1v1s all day but ultimately if you don't have tournament results when a discussion comes up about the best players to play the game you(not you specifically) don't deserve to even be mentioned.

Well, if that's about aoe3 achievements then yes.

Still, if a guy doesn't play in tournaments but has a 90% win rate against the guy who won the tournaments (I'm not saying this is my case), then he's the best player.

This is obviously true, I don't know why anybody is discussing this.

I disagree with with it lol. Look at any sport, esport etc and the best team/player is the team/player that consistently performs in tourneys.

Not necessarily. Its basically the argument brought up to refute that messi is the best football player of all time. Hes amazing in club setting, but he has failed time and again to reach that level in the setting of international tournaments. Not just has he failed to win prizes, but he just never looked as impressive wearing the argentina jersey as he did the barcelona one. For me he's still the best, regardless though.

gibson wrote:Well tournament results should be the most important metric when measuring how good someone is.

Theres a problem with that, right? Not every tournament is stacked the same or has the same rules. So how are you going to judge the weight of each tournament? For that you first have to know how good the players in it are.

umeu wrote:Not necessarily. Its basically the argument brought up to refute that messi is the best football player of all time. Hes amazing in club setting, but he has failed time and again to reach that level in the setting of international tournaments. Not just has he failed to win prizes, but he just never looked as impressive wearing the argentina jersey as he did the barcelona one. For me he's still the best, regardless though.

That's because Messi is only effective when the team is built around him. He even participates in club decisions when new players are brought in. And he has a veto on whether a player stays or not. Every new player brought to Barcelona needs to do him some favours, he needs to prove himself useful to Messi if he wants to stay there. That's why Neymar was kissing his ass so much before joining Barca. He knew he couldn't do shit there without first appeasing Messi. Ridiculous, if you ask me.

So I think Messi is not a complete player, he's very context-dependent. If the team doesn't do exactly what he wants, he ends up having a lethargic performance. He doesn't run much on the pitch anyway, he doesn't play defence if necessary, he just walks around waiting for the team to bring the ball to him.

I've watched some matches from the 1980s and I think Maradona was better than Messi, tbh. Yeah, different times, different football, but still, a much more complete player.

Sure, that's all fine and true, but maradonna never defended either. It's only very recent development that attackers go back to defend. When messi does have the ball though... and unlike for example ronaldinho, who performed magic when on the ball that no one has ever displayed, messi does have insane effeciency in goalscoring ability as well as assisting teammates to score. He's a game deciding player. Who cares whether he defends or not.

Maradonna did great for argentina, but i think on club level he played in a worse league, and football wasn't as competitive as now. Also his peak didn't last as long as messi's, who has been consistently scoring over 40 goals 10 years in a row... that's just so insanem and they're not easy or goalpoaching goals either. A third of them are great, half are marvelous.

I would give Maradona the upper hand in dribbling ability. Messi is great at scoring but he's not really that brilliant at dribbling.

And yeah, well, times were different when either player was/is active. Football is more physical today, less based on talent and more based on team positioning and tackling. So maybe if Maradona played today he wouldn't have been able to pull off those absolutely amazing performances of dribbling more than half of the enemy team and still manage to score. So it's hard to make a comparison when football has changed so much since the 80s.