Also, yes, I have seen the aformentioned players (well, at least Sze and HHH) play at least 10 times. I don't think I need to play them in order to know how they play.

But Platypus, in order to jugdge other people's level of play, first you need to learn how this game is actually played...

'but compared to Gui, Sze, Dunga...he's nothing.'

Nothing is what I mean here. When do you see these players ever say that HHH was nothing compared to them? They all dread playing HHH. Tim dreads playing HHH. I explained quite reasonably why HHH doesn't do so hot on ladder.

i demand this thread title be changed, he is an imposter

Aah Billy... you so last year my dear.

HHH is somewhat overrated. He's a good player, but compared to Gui, Sze, Dunga...he's nothing.

Amen brother, somewhat overrated is an understatement.

apparently he used to be good, but the only people who fear facing him now are 1800s and Szeweningen because sze is the only one who remembers when he used to be strong. He doesn't spend long enough on moves to be anything other than sloppy and predictable imho.

teh thign about hhh is just that generation thing, he was one of the ebst players for a while, now there is a new generation of very good players, perhaps he will eb back in the next egneration, but in this one he is just a good player (which si better than what i am)

'but compared to Gui, Sze, Dunga...he's nothing.'

{RP} Lolowut [WG], Platypus, Juggernaut of Denmark, bring me these people, I would like to play against anyone who makes HHH look like nothing.

You were told once Billy, you have a whole thread about yourself, go and add to it.

how does one define one of the best players this 'generation'? #1 in 1v1 ladder? hhh did that a few months ago. #1 in 2v2 ladder? hhh has done it with 3-4 teammates and was first for most of the last 4 months. strong showing in seasonal ladders? he could've been top 5 last season but didn't bother playing his last game. this new 'generation' is more about me 1v1s. hhh is still better than nearly all newer players at 3v3 europe, especially cities which has less luck involved. live tournaments? only tim has won more.

discounting hhh for his lack of attention to ladder 1v1s is odd. should sze and I discount all players who can't play 3v3 europe cities near our level? hhh will be back to the top of the 1v1 ladder. nobody has done it three times. i wouldn't bet against him.

Master Gui please can I understand why europe cities is better than random warlord to prove the skills of a player? I tought that being able to play europe cities was simply a prove of a bigger resistance to boredom.

warlord : pick order luck sometimes determines games before any playing happens.

cities: pick order luck can easily be accounted for. just pick a nearby city. skill and cooperation matter more.

if one isn't very good at tactics, cooperating, seeing and exploiting minor advantages, understanding balance and 6-player macro-strategy, i think cities would be annoying, disorienting, dull or confusing. warlords is easier to adjust to. less tactical thought is required. slightly less cooperation is needed. pick order luck can help a weaker team beat a stronger team, which can be more satisfying than playing cities and losing again and again.

I think the best players of this generation all know who they are and they know each other. I dont know how youd define them though, besides who they lose to regularly ie each other. Certainly not the ladders, surely you of all people would agree with that.

this new 'generation' is more about me 1v1s

Do you mean we only play strat 1v1? I do... It is by far the most competitive scene thanks to the autogames and ladders, and a high level of competition is what I need.

I discount HHH because he doesnt win much against good players, same way i "discount" 99.9% of other players. There is nothing wrong with not being the best, but if you arent I am not likely to be enthusiastic about playing with you.

You and Sze can discount anyone you want. The only reason I am interested in who is great and who is not is that I want to know who is going to give me a challenging (fun) game. If you and Sze think noone but the 2 of you can give each other a challenging game then discount everyone else.

It was a rhetorical question. Challenging games don't always need the greatest opponents. unknown once made a thread about how challenging and enjoyable it is to play real-time 3v3swith rrandom teammates, since the unfamiliarity makes things interesting. You never really know who will do what, and it forces you to adapt. I enjoy games like that too. I don't like 1v1s as much as a good team game. 1v1s against great players make me feel my thoughts and moves don't really matter. We think and click and make dozens of delays each turn. Yet when I really look at most of those games I've had against top players what stands out the most is luck. It's like in sports. In a game there are usually 1-6 key moves. Who does what and who has the best luck on those moves wins. 1v1s take more time to play than team games. Yet they are decided on less. I get no satisfaction spending that much time only to have the game decided on a few coin flips. The futility of thinking annoys me. And if it gets to the point where I understand my enemy's thinking enough to have a strategic advantage, then it becomes dull too: a lot of times I enjoy 1v1s as a window into someone else's strategic mind. I sometimes enjoy playing vanilla not with the intent to win so much as the curiosity of learning how others play. Other times I play just to chat. For 1v1s, winning only matters on the ladder.

If it was a rhetorical question, what was the unspoken answer? How does one define the best players?

Unpredictable luck is a creative kind of adversity because it makes the game more complex and interesting. It isnt perfect and should be improved to make the game even more complex and interesting. Unreliable teammates are not because your team ends up playing without a strategy, just tactics. The more reliable the teammates and the better the team the closer the team gets to operating as one player. At the point with most cooperation and coordination on a strategy a 3v3 becomes a 1v1 with 3 detachments on each side and which player enters the orders for which team becomes irrelevant.

Maybe you dont like 1v1s against great players because you usually lose and you dont understand why? Noone else here thinks 1v1s are often decided on coinflips. There are far fewer people competing with you for top spot in 3v3s so you win more and so prefer it maybe?

You come to my thread for a chat?! [WM] dead piggy, Huckleberry Finn, if you aren't going to challenge me, then get out. Go and create more threads so that everyone can see your names splashed all over the forum. Talk talk talk.

I want more challengers.

1. Best players: three types (all-around, ladder 1v1 settings, team games)
2. Not really.
3. That is not why I prefer team games' more sophisticated strategies and tactics.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3727903

Another average player put in his place but the best player this site has ever seen.

Can someone create a tournament for all players who claim that they are best?

we can, but they wont join because settings arent good or for some other reason

I will join. Invite fatih, I will beat him.

And make sure Gui and Szeweningen are there. They think they are the best even if they do not say it, and I want to crush them. Especially Sze who tells everyone that he is the best so often he believes it himself but wont challenge me. If he thinks he is so amazing where is my challenge? If he refuses to play then he is the second best.

I am undefeated.