ESOCommunity

Hello everyone, I was reading your comments, when I just started the game all my friends used to always talk about shmras boneng setugen tombo takuman tonkatu in my point of view they are better than nobumanteikoku and nagayumi, I think that shmras and boneng was at the same level as h2o and grunt.

For me ,
H2o
Grunt
Np
Samwise12
Shmras
Boneng
Blackstar
Nagayumi
Tonkatu
Takuman
Tombo
Flooky

i like ur list.id put in bsop somewhere ans take out tonkatu

Chetbaker123 wrote:Hello everyone, I was reading your comments, when I just started the game all my friends used to always talk about shmras boneng setugen tombo takuman tonkatu in my point of view they are better than nobumanteikoku and nagayumi, I think that shmras and boneng was at the same level as h2o and grunt.

Their tactics do well on quicksearch games no doubt

Goodspeed wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

Goodspeed wrote:I don't think any currently active players would make the cut considering how much more competitive the game used to be.

My pride wants to say that surely there would be some players now who would do quite well in the past, but then remember at how laughable most current players’ mechanics are and have to agree with you. :(

Though, to be honest I don’t recall being all that impressed by older players’ mechanics in VODs either, but there’s so much less content from back then that it’s hard to find any truly good games to begin with

I think rather than comparing gameplay from then to now we should try to find links between the players' relative skill levels. H2O is about the only link we have, and he continued to do extremely well in the past years even though he wasn't active, while he had to train very hard and even hide his build order to win that WCG. In other words peak H2O was much stronger than he was in 2015, but even 2015 H2O beat everyone.
It's also just a numbers game. The competitive community is tiny compared to how it was, meaning we can safely assume that the players who did very well in those days were "exceptional". Exceptional players now would be beating everyone somewhat convincingly. I think BSOP is the only newer player that qualifies, meaning he would have been a top 5 player even in those days. The difference is that then, he would have had rivals. Now, he doesn't.

i don't think it's fair to use a grunt to h20 comparison to say that nowaday players are worse. Grunt was an exception. He was an esports star before aoe3 was even released. It would be like if serral from sc2 started playing aoe and using him to say that current players are better than old players.

somppukunkku wrote:Hate me haters but I'd say that best players of 2019 would shit on "legendary old school players".

Meta has evolved a lot and game has been taken to extreme measures where no single units are "suicided", constant pull tricks are abused, explo snare countered immediately etc.

memories grow sweeter with time and relative dominance create illusions...
I mean, do we have any examples of old school stars dominating in last years?
Counter-example is Garja. This guy was really good in 2014 - or the level of the gameplay was low, that even though he plays somewhat constantly, he seems to win nobody good nowadays. Has Garja gotten really SO MUCH worse or has the level of gameplay increased in general? Probably both.

2014 I wasnt even good anymore. I peaked at 2012-2013 where game was more tough because playerbase was larger, and JP community was super active. You would get instant qs game anytime.
Anyway most of supposd top5-10 aoe3 players rly dominated the game for long, so they're defintely better than today players. Not comparable tho.
Gotta love old pros vs new pros discussion. It's like most debated topic ever.

Garja wrote:Gotta love old pros vs new pros discussion. It's like most debated topic ever.

alt+d

We should start a top5 debated topic ever, which would result in old topics vs new topics.

should have a top 10 past 2015 where most of the players here were actually active/relevant enough to judge skill, too many people blindly say grunt despite never seeing him play or barely see him play

the problem is you cant really compare different eras. Its like saying whos better wilt chamberlain or lebron james? They really played a different game so you cant really compare.

gibson wrote:the problem is you cant really compare different eras. Its like saying whos better wilt chamberlain or lebron james? They really played a different game so you cant really compare.

you could if you knew the mechanical skill of each player. Because in the end better mechanics will prevail most of the time. Even in aoe 3.

Goodspeed wrote:

Mitoe wrote:

Goodspeed wrote:I don't think any currently active players would make the cut considering how much more competitive the game used to be.

My pride wants to say that surely there would be some players now who would do quite well in the past, but then remember at how laughable most current players’ mechanics are and have to agree with you. :(

Though, to be honest I don’t recall being all that impressed by older players’ mechanics in VODs either, but there’s so much less content from back then that it’s hard to find any truly good games to begin with

I think rather than comparing gameplay from then to now we should try to find links between the players' relative skill levels. H2O is about the only link we have, and he continued to do extremely well in the past years even though he wasn't active, while he had to train very hard and even hide his build order to win that WCG. In other words peak H2O was much stronger than he was in 2015, but even 2015 H2O beat everyone.
It's also just a numbers game. The competitive community is tiny compared to how it was, meaning we can safely assume that the players who did very well in those days were "exceptional". Exceptional players now would be beating everyone somewhat convincingly. I think BSOP is the only newer player that qualifies, meaning he would have been a top 5 player even in those days. The difference is that then, he would have had rivals. Now, he doesn't.

I disagree.
The old players had less time to learn the game and most would get raped by current players.
It's the same in all games really, in sc2, although it's less active and less competitive than before, today's players would shit on 2014-2015 players, like not even close.

People tend to pray the old pros, but they're just worse because the game evolved.

lordraphael wrote:

gibson wrote:the problem is you cant really compare different eras. Its like saying whos better wilt chamberlain or lebron james? They really played a different game so you cant really compare.

you could if you knew the mechanical skill of each player. Because in the end better mechanics will prevail most of the time. Even in aoe 3.

But the point is you cant quantify someones mechanical skill, you cant know how they would play in a different meta, and you cant know how they would play vs different players. In most things higher activity leads to a higher level of skill though, which makes me think old players would do just fine now.

I don´t really have a top ten, but these are my favourites. Their surpreme game knowledge lead to superior map awareness and an economy which was way more productive then any other Top10 Player. They we´re even able to send some special care packages on the edge of defeat.
1.Sirmusket
2.roiarthurbis

could make a top 10 listing between specific times from 2005-2008, 2009-2012/13 or something like that. because of evolved meta and because it's impossible to compare. there were quite a few players who made only few build orders even in 2013 and were relatively succesful, like shmras.

[Armag] diarouga wrote:I disagree.
The old players had less time to learn the game and most would get raped by current players.
It's the same in all games really, in sc2, although it's less active and less competitive than before, today's players would shit on 2014-2015 players, like not even close.

People tend to pray the old pros, but they're just worse because the game evolved.

The same old players with comparable practice time and available information would still be better than most current players.
When comparing old and new we are essentially comparing pure talent and how dominant a player was compared to the field at that given time.

What you're trying to say here is that the overall level increased which has not much to do with a topX list.

my top 10 :
1-H20
2-bsop
3-diarouga
4-raphael
5-nagayumi
6-kaiserklein
7-kynesie
8-goongoon
9-aizamk
10-umeu

potential top10 who I don't know enough spadel, samwise, grunt, mitoe, hazza, boneng

diarouga top 10 when he hasnt won shit lol

bwinner1 wrote:my top 10 :
1-H20
2-bsop
3-diarouga
4-raphael
5-nagayumi
6-kaiserklein
7-kynesie
8-goongoon
9-aizamk
10-umeu

potential top10 who I don't know enough spadel, samwise, grunt, mitoe, hazza, boneng

ye, samwise and grunt def ahead most of the players u listed

Lenari wrote:I don´t really have a top ten, but these are my favourites. Their surpreme game knowledge lead to superior map awareness and an economy which was way more productive then any other Top10 Player. They we´re even able to send some special care packages on the edge of defeat.
1.Sirmusket
2.roiarthurbis

u forgot uhlan

somppukunkku wrote:Hate me haters but I'd say that best players of 2019 would shit on "legendary old school players".

Meta has evolved a lot and game has been taken to extreme measures where no single units are "suicided", constant pull tricks are abused, explo snare countered immediately etc.

memories grow sweeter with time and relative dominance create illusions...
I mean, do we have any examples of old school stars dominating in last years?
Counter-example is Garja. This guy was really good in 2014 - or the level of the gameplay was low, that even though he plays somewhat constantly, he seems to win nobody good nowadays. Has Garja gotten really SO MUCH worse or has the level of gameplay increased in general? Probably both.

counter-counter-example is somppu, this guy was really bad in 2014 - or the level of the game play was high, that even though he played the best civ in the game, russia, he never seemed to beat anyone good. Somppu hasn't gotten any better, but now he's a top 8 player.





ps: fuck exams, we want sompu vs garja. u can't deny the people their bread & games!


a ranking like this for me can only be made by the players I've faced.

Usually when you lose a game, you know what went wrong, you see the mistakes you made and where you dropped the win. But sometimes a game happens where you feel you did almost everything right, and you still lost, and you don't really know why. Or you know why, but feel like there was nothing you could've done to avoid it. The players that I've felt hopeless against in some games are the top 5, the best players I've faced, and imo the best in the game (since I started playing in 2010)

1 bpdscolony
2 moesbar
3
[spoiler=spoiler]1 H2O
2 Nagayumi
3 Samwise12
4 bsop
5 spadel[/spoiler]

Grunt was by far the most dominant player in game history. H2O then had a solid streak as well as NaturePhoenix.

Big drop off for fourth place after those 4. Samwise comes close but not close enough imo.

sebnan12 wrote:i like ur list.id put in bsop somewhere ans take out tonkatu

tonkatu from my point of view when I reached its top it was really good I liked to see recs when I used holland and british, although I'm not wrong I became pr 42 to pure 1v1 ,

tonkatu from my point of view when I reached his top was really good I liked to see his recs when tonkatu used holland and british, if I remember well, he became pr 42 playing only 1v1

Garja wrote:

[Armag] diarouga wrote:I disagree.
The old players had less time to learn the game and most would get raped by current players.
It's the same in all games really, in sc2, although it's less active and less competitive than before, today's players would shit on 2014-2015 players, like not even close.

People tend to pray the old pros, but they're just worse because the game evolved.

The same old players with comparable practice time and available information would still be better than most current players.
When comparing old and new we are essentially comparing pure talent and how dominant a player was compared to the field at that given time.

What you're trying to say here is that the overall level increased which has not much to do with a topX list.

The old players were probably more talented because the game wasn't figured out at all. Still, since the level increased they would lose today.