Both of those statements are false. Totally and blatantly false.Originally Posted by Godly
Both of those statements are false. Totally and blatantly false.
Goldy would have been a great forum clown back in the 20s :)
He goes by the name Brtarolg and is kd-less atm. I am sure he would hang with you guys.
It really depends. If you took a kd from now and put it back to age 20 with age twenty technology aka no smart phones but cross logging was easy enough it would probably favour age 20 kd as a huge portion of the current kd probably makes a large portion of their hits off wifi or 3G. Likely uses no xlogging
From what I have heard pansies did some xlogging at the time which is understandable as the internet was not as accessible and sitting didn't exist
My life is better then yours.
That's Glorat's brother I thought?
Yeah but he will know where his brother is :P
Brtarolg use to be in Darwin........ also I think?
I was a better player (and leader) ages 19-30 than I was in ages 58-current, though my recent stint I've been playing better than any of the random ones in the middle.
The reason why is largely because back then, we cared and spent a lot more time on it than we do now.
To be frank, outside of me, I don't think any of CRs leadership has any experience competing in anything like the 20s. The gameplay was so drastically different -- because you couldn't go on 20% draft and pump for a month to get an advantage on someone else, you had to be trained for conflict at all times because short term deals and notice deals didn't really exist. I'm highly confident that if you took CR and planted them in the 20s, they would do poorly the first age, and probably be competitive after that, but they would be far from the dominating powerhouse you think they'd be.
The reality is that the game mechanics haven't changed that much since then (and if we're assuming you're planting a kingdom back then, it doesn't make a difference, you'd be using their game mechanics). But the reality is -- a few years ago, I randomly asked sid what he thought the best setup woudl be -- he hadn't played in about 4-5 years at this point. He responded with the crowning setup. Don't assume that just because people haven't played doesn't mean that they understand game mechanics. The game, back in the teens and 20s was all about identifying the tricks that no one else had thought of and exploiting them with your optimal setup. Just because a lot of those have been ironed out and you have a more consistent top doesn't mean that the top is better today than it was then.
Would you take outplayerz as a kdmate over mango? Outplayerz has more ages of experience.
That's a silly comparison. Mango has more experience in top play. There are people that are currently playing that have been playing since the first 10 rounds that couldn't get past 2k acres if their life depended on it. If you want to compare a TOP player that has played 20 rounds vs a top player that has played 60 rounds, it's not even a comparison. Sid was a friend of mine back then (still have the dude on ICQ) and if we would lose to any kingdom it would probably be Pansies, but my opinion is that if I could pick a "round 63" kd, it would be too stacked with crowning experience to lose. I already know the exact 25 kd roster. In general, this post is just bait for me to tout achievements and get flamed for being egotistical so I'll decline to comment any further. You should definitely look at or ask me about what I've done or tricks invented before making such retarded statements. There is a legitimate case to be made that even the round 19 andn00bs roster would have beaten Pansies if they were going for the same crown. Honor kds back then were good.
"Godly, you do realized that you have just sealed your faith now, right?"
Your argument is really that the age 19 andn00bs kd who won honor would have had a good shot vs the age 19 pansies kingdom that finished t5 honor and won nw/land, because honor kds were so good?
You do realize that Pansies were incredibly competitive on the honor crown while winning nw/land in both age 19 and 20 right? :p
I don't really think CR, for example, has that many more crowns today than pansies had in 22. If any.
I agree -- playing more ages doesn't make you better. There are plenty of people who have been playing forever and are terrible. Even at the top. That's part of my point.
My opinion is that andn00bs had the best roster in 19. That's why I chose to join them over the others (well that and I preferred warring). It was 10 years ago so obviously my memory isn't 100% but that was my mindset at the time and I'll just trust my opinion of the situation at that fork. That being said, it is my opinion that there is very little chance that the roster that I put together would lose to any kd from that era. Playing more ages does make you better. The noobs today that have played 60 rounds are better than they were round 1. They're just bad at utopia or don't care enough to be in contention. The people who played less rounds and are better just accelerated their growth faster.
"Godly, you do realized that you have just sealed your faith now, right?"
Zauper4Lyfe
Vendaho?
I'm here to vend *****es and chew bubblegum, and I'm all out of *****es...
trololol, how you been? Still keep in touch with Izza?
Great actually! Nah I lost contact with Izza a couple years ago :(
I still keep in touch with Azzy and Reuben though, both are good friends in fact. I actually met Reuben last year, he came to Melbourne for a holiday and crashed on my couch.
What about you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote