irishfaithful wrote:Its [url=http://aoe3.jpcommunity.com/rating2/player?t=age3SP&n=IrishFaithful&m=latestmatch&v=10>=1v1&p1=umeu&p2=&p3=&p4=&p5=&p6=&p7=&mc=0&oc=0&map=&lenf=&lent=&ft=1]5-7 on Nilla[/url].?Whatever you did on smurfs, I dont know. I think knowing the player is half the game.
When you played me, I had 2400 elo, one of them 2180.
A thousand games later, I was 2800, and thats when I moved to TAD. Raids being on point was due to my newly gained team experience, I think it was definitely worth the time learning team. We can play on a map thats balanced, I just dont want to waste time with unrated games.?The amount you learn in rated is just so much greater.
Im not that good on TAD, Im just not familiar with the environment, and it makes me play a lot differently. I actually think TAD is less competitive, Nilla match-ups and great plains (with a few re-hosts) are pretty balanced. Ive played all the Nilla civs, and I like the balance it has. I started getting into TAD a while back, but was pressed at work.
Diarouga: Sure, we can play a BO10 over the weekend on TAD, I dont mind what civ you use.
Eh yes. 5-7 for me, 6-4 1v1, 1-1 team. And 2-0 in that casted bo5 u didnt finish. And i guess for you its important to know the player because you counter styles, yet all the accs i played on were high ranked and i played u multiple games on all of them, so the wins are still legit.
Anyway its so long ago its irrelevant, its sufficient to say ur not the best on nilla because you never played the best, but i guess the 2 years you played alot, you were the best, after chusik quit and nobody was left to trim your elo :/
On tad u got 2500 which i guess is accurate more or less
