Oldschool vs Newschool

[Captain Nemo]

custom is right. How come ras isn't the best of the bests? If he indeed was the best his skill level could decline but since he isn't the best he can't complain about lack of competition. Only the very best can complain about lack of competition for 1v1 liga. IMO there were enough players to challenge ras. Also, Im pretty sure he has improved without even knowing it, his PS has gone up anyway.

I came to the Liga scene in 2004 (not really playing it, but talking about it at least). phantom was the best among the germans there and had won like 3 ESGL 1v1 liga tourneys in a row. I remember him saying when he went up against BE that this guy was like on another level, but also that he wasn't really integrated in the german liga community and not all knew him. Thats 2004, idk if the great germans were all playing in 2002-2003 or w/e. IMO ras has overrated BE compared to today anyway as his own level has improved since then perhaps without him even realizing.
Oh and wasn't BE caught cheating too? Btw with regards to tribute glitching it's fairly easy to catch those who do that, if u know how. And thats a big IF cause not many knew how.

Krass wasn't even the biggest talent at all, goldeneye was much more talented in that way. Krass just tried alot harder and always wanted to get better. It took krass many years to reach his top level, and he's a prof gamer now (so obviously he has what it takes). I would imagine those old pros hadn't reach their full potential yet either.

Oh and regarding what wins games I think u're all missing one of the most important things: timing. Time your attack to be at the exact right time. If you at some point have a larger for than your opponent then u shouldn't stay back but head forward and push your advantage. Most strategies have a time frame in which they're particularly effective. So preplan your strategy to peak at some moment for example 14f11, perhaps u get a hero there or something or u age up. It's important to have a "weapon" when u play, know your strengths and weaknesses. If you're great in late game perhaps u should attempt to drag out the game and kill then. If you're best in early game maybe thats your key. If you're up against ras in liga perhaps it's wisest to kill him fast as his late game is his strongest suit. Krass u should probably try to wear it out. Find each opponent's weakness and use it against them in a perfectly timed attack!

This debate is very pointless and very interesting at the same time, I like it

PS: Tricky you're totally contradicting yourself, saying ras got worse due to no competiton but kazter could get really good cause there indeed was competition. Make up your mind like custom said

[Omega]

There are three ways players of a real-time player versus player game get better:

1) Solo practice against weak opponents or a computer. This ONLY works as far as improving skill at basic repetitive tasks, not at improving skill at any mid-level or higher-level tasks.

2) Playing against considerably superior opponents and emulating them by learning from their successes and your failures. This is the fastest way to improve. It's just not very fun.

3) Playing against similar level opponents. This is the slowest way to improve, because generally improvement occurs by slow and steady incremental play innovations, punctuated by the rare (and practically nonexistent at expert level) radical innovations. Often, some players will be better at innovating than others, and will continually be 'on top' for that reason (incremental innovators until there's a radical innovation, and radical innovators who are on top for a short time because they explored the game and figured something groundbreaking out, but often quickly lose the top slot to people with greater technical ability (especially those who are good incremental innovators).

We could basically broaden these same points (well, broaden #1 anyway) and have them fit everything from Basketball to Football to Soccer to Rugby to Street Fighter... to Starcraft. Taking the original Starcraft, everyone basically played like total scrubs (even the best players), until one guy radically shifted the game by realizing that you could pretty much define who was winning and who was losing by taking into account current and projected resource incomes for players, current and projected unit relative kill-trade ratios, current and projected unit production ratios, etc. and figure out, essentially with math (theoretically of course), who had a current advantage and who had a future advantage, then figuring out various play innovations that fit with his idea. It revolutionized the game, and he was THE BEST player for a short time because of it. Then other people caught on who had more technical skill, and they sized the top slots, and there have been no radical innovations in the original Starcraft since then.

---

There are three ways a player of a real time PvP game can get worse:

1) Injury. This is self explanatory. If you're right handed and pop an important pulley (with respect to clicking) in your index finger or middle of your right hand, you will certainly SUCK at playing until the injury heals.

2) Playing considerably weaker players a large enough fraction of the time. Depending on how weak, it might be high and middle level skills that atrophy, or it might just be high level skills that atrophy.

3) Not playing at all. Also self explanatory.

Again, we could broaden these and extend them to virtually everything. Have Tiger Woods take 5 years off from playing Golf entirely, and he'll come back and be much worse at Golf than he was when he quit; it will take him considerable time to gain the level of skill he had back. Furthermore, games like EE aren't quite like Golf. You can totally practice Golf all on your own, and a *lot* of Golf as a sport is "merely" technique. You need opponents to practice EE against to regain your skills... Need I continue comparing and contrasting the obvious?

---

There have been no radical innovations since what most of you would call the early days of EE. It's very hard to categorize the incremental innovations, but they seem extremely minor. After all, for basic skills (building stuff, mining stuff, build orders, etc.) there are definitely either no incremental innovations or they're so small no one can notice them (and speaking overall, it's clear these skills have mostly slid downwards even at the top). Quantifying other skills is virtually impossible due to various reasons, of course, but it seems relatively unlikely that many higher level skills have seen noticeable improvement either.

It's possible as some would claim that EE has seen a metagame shift, like say, Chess saw between different eras. (like say from the romantic era compared to now). Of course, these are generally associated with radical innovations (or at least HUGE amounts of incremental innovations), and fairly easy to spot in comparison. If someone can point something like this out, I'd love to hear it, because I can't think of anything.

---

Player skill is obviously part technical, part experience, and part mental (on-the-fly strategic and tactical aspects--which obviously draw from/on experience and technical ability).

The more players you have, the more players at the high end of the potential technical skill spectrum you will have, and same goes for the mental skill spectrum (and the same goes for a great combination of the two).

The more players you have, the more experience that dedicated players will have. They can play more games, play those games against a wider opponent pool (important for fostering incremental innovations... another reason it seems less likely there's been a lot of those as the population has plummeted), and in that opponent pool there are a *lot* more excellent players in all aspects.

---

I was going to write this about putting everything together, but I'm sure people can do that for themselves, so here's the short version. Old players who come back will have atrophied in skill, and while some of that is quick to rebound, most isn't. Yet, those players are frequently on-par with the currently best players after a few games. There's no reason to think significant incremental innovation has taken place, and good reason to think it hasn't, and there's no evidence for any radical innovation from the past; these are things that obsolete past players and ways of playing (and more evidence against that was just mentioned, actually).

Based on the way people develop higher level skills, it seems unlikely that current players have a better environment than past players did, due to the opponent pool, and it seems less likely that newer players are even at the top end of the technical and mental maximum ability spectrum (smaller sample -> less outliers).

It's not really possible to make any direct comparisons anyway, so no one can settle the issue. But there's no good reason for newer players to genuinely think they're somehow uniquely better than older players, and good reasons for them to think otherwise. Older players have a better case, even though it's impossible to be definitive.

[Captain Nemo]

Only if one agrees with your assumptions omega. I can go in details later but the thing about few new innovations came to mind first. For mod dm i STRONGLY disagree no new things have happened. It has been majorly changed. mid, nothing new tho. Liga, hard to say for me but I find it hard to believe nothing has happened there.

BE wasn't even close to the bests in liga even after a good number of games when he had his small return.

I also think u left out the perhaps most important aspect of learning: time.
by your reasoning Oldschool players have had 2 years (depends where u wanna draw the line) of the slowest type of learning to aquire their skills whereas many newschools have had about 10 years of the fastes learning type, given that nothing new has happened.

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

nemo PS: Tricky you're totally contradicting yourself, saying ras got worse due to no competiton but kazter could get really good cause there indeed was competition. Make up your mind like custom said

I didnt say ras got worse due to no competition i said ras left due to lack of competition and games same with alot of the other new school liga players who have vanished. How many liga games do we see now ? 2-3 a day ? kazter improved because he got the chance to play with ras,sam,krass and others ofc he learnt himself but im trying to say without them games with ras,sam,bones and others he would of found it hard to improve to level he is now.

Also 06 time we used to have liga games we would have about 15-20 a day you was constantly playing and improving every day now days its rare to see 2-3 games of liga.

Hope that explains a little bit better of what i meant lol ;c

[User_]

remember when ee came out the experts were players from other games aoe sc and so on. did not take them long until they find best build and strategys. also was so many players the real monsters played nonstop 24/7. we had lots of tournaments and ladders as well so competitive scene was great. is not proof that we were better but without recorded games we will never know for sure.
if your best player now is starcraft pro is sure he is real expert.

[Captain Nemo]

no, what i wrote is actually that your skill also declines when there is no competition. The weaker the players are you are playing against the worse you play yourself, given enough time. Anyways every player has a "skill-limited" set by mind or body. Its like not everyone can become a pro soccer player just cos he trained with really good ones since hes 4y old.

I agree on this tbh i think the lack of competition in later years is why goldeneye,krass,ras started to give up on ee well krass moved to sc2. I think you need to have your bar set high to improve as a player you need to play top players oftern to improve yourself.

But even some great players developed in this lobby only, like Arntzen, without any competition,

Well this is untrue custom because kazter started to improve by the help of ras also playing against people like sam and others. You cant say he improved without any competition.

I didnt say ras got worse due to no competition i said ras left due to lack of competition and games same with alot of the other new school liga players who have vanished.

When u quoted Last's point and said totally agree, you'd expect your following to be something of an example that supports his claim. Well it seemed to be a bit different then. They quit due to EE's lack of activity I think too. I don't think any of them got worse by playing tho, just that u had to play same people over and over, and the wait for a good 4v4 game was too much.

[Samuel]

There have definitely been innovations. Obviously, a set like krass will witness more blatant innovations to the eye than Liga does. The way Mod DM is structured makes it so that it's much easier to spot developments in the gaming style, whilst changes in Ligasets that seem really minor will appear to be almost non-krass to the observer.

To make an example, if we took Nemo and krass and had them play 10 Liga 1v1s against the ten best Liga 1v1 players of the newschool, it's much more likely that ras will have a better % of victories than Nemo.
Now, think about the situation clearly, is Nemo an inferior player compared to krass? He's not inferior, he can defend, micro and do all of the other stuff than any pro player can do just as good as krass. Then what is it that makes ras has a better % of victories over Nemo? It's the fact that krass knows more things and is capable of spotting details more than Nemo could do in a Liga 1v1.

To me, the ability to spot more details is already a major improvement. Goldeneye is no better than us at all the so called "basic skills", yet he would win almost every Liga 1v1 he played. If such a "minor details" can make you win most games, then such details need to be given the credits they deserve.

Most of the strategies for Ligasetting were invented back then, that's true, and we haven't seen that many newer strategies these days. That's just the way the game is structured, if Austria is the best age at Stone Age just like Great Krass is at Mod Age, and that's something that was originally discovered back then, it's virtually impossible for anybody to come up with a better, different strategy nowadays. There will obviously not be any "major" change regarding that, and it would be impossible.

Still, just because the newschool wasn't able to implement impossible "krass" changes into the game, it doesn't mean that Liga didn't progress. It did progress in other ways, through "minor changes" that aren't easily spottable through the eye of the observer, just because a liga game isn't as "epic" as a Mod DM game, where things can be spotted more easily.

Age 8: Imperial Age:

Here you have the choice between boom+inf (with Austria), rush inf (Austria or Kingdom of Krass) or just a classical development (but slow) with Spain (Spain having the best bonuses of the game for inf, but doesn’t have bonus on peons nor on hunting&#8230

This was from a popular guide back then. Now, this just makes me wonder ... did RS_Gollum even have any idea how to play Imperial Age?
_Boom+inf = instantly dead against any Imperial Age play from nowadays, you see Austria and forward rax with Spain and gg.
_Rush inf = funnily enough Gollum doesn't even consider Spain in regards to rushing with inf, though he seems to consider Kingdom of Italy as a viable choice. Pretty weird to me to be fair. As for Austria, it just blows in this age as Spain has just got the upper hand.
_Slow development with Spain: incredibly, Gollum, unhappy for not having mentioned Krass before, puts it at the end and he recommends a slow development(!!), knowing that the only way for the Austrian player to win against Spain at this age is surviving long enough to make a mix cav+inf (and therefore giving the enemy time to mix)?

Now I wonder ... if one of the best EU players from back then didn't have any clue on how to play Imperial Age, why should I even think that he was that knowledgeable. Why would he be so great at finding those kind of tiny details (that would let Goldeneye win almost any krass game) when he's still wondering what's best to do?

Whilst it's true that there was the chance for wider experience, it's also true that part of this experience might have been ... "useless", a waste of time basically (not all of it obviously, but some). Gollum could have all of the experience of this world in playing Austria v Austria at Imperial age, but make him play against any average newschooler, he will Spain forward rax him and Gollum loses. What was that experience for?

What I'm saying is, that part of the time that players took back then to analyze strategies was dedicated into coming up with viable strategies, some of which wouldn't be viable at all today. Now, do you think that oldschoolers were instantly capable of finding out what the best krass was, or do you think they had to take their time? This part of the guide clearly proves the second option to be right.

Football might be a game by endless possibilities where everything is possible, however EE is a videogame that puts some limits. You are bound to abide by what the game offers, and that includes the fact that, simply said, Spain just >>> everything else at Imperial Age. Some oldschoolers might have taken a lot of time before realizing it (and went through "Krass v Krass" kind of games or even Kingdom of Italy), whilst newschoolers already knew from the beginning what the best option was, giving them more time (as well as more years, given it's now 2013) to look into tiny details to assure victory.

I'm not trying to say that newschoolers are better, I'm just trying to have an objective look at things and at the fact that the game had more players back then to have experience comes with the downside of having to investigate through civilizations and strategies BEFORE even coming up with in-game details, and that's something that's just as important.

Also, don't forget that dividing oldschoolers and newschoolers as phenomenons that took place in two different contexts is wrong, as I hardly think it's possible to believe that every newschooler suddendly stopped playing as soon as newschoolers started playing. It's much more believeable to believe in the fact that at some stage they intermingled.

If you have a look at the 2002 (end of the year final) played in Paris between Elfanor and Flimzam and krass, you will see that some things just wouldn't look quite right as of today. I used to have the screens of the games (NW_Fabiossowa had found them on a site) and one of the games was Copper Age.
My first question that comes to mind is, why would Flimzam, in that moment a representer of the 2 supposed best players, would start his krass by TCing is forage settlement when there's not even wood nearby, just because he has hunt next? That's suicide in copper age, and you play it in a final?

The statistics after the game showed an interesting 3500 ps for Elfanor and a 700 ps for Flimzam. It also showed something more interesting, they both aged up to bronze later than 18 f11 (again, instant death nowadays).
Oldschoolers in the 2002 and possibly early 2003 stage hadn't yet ruled out what are today's unviable strategies, and the spectrum of viable strategies was wider, which makes it harder to conduct proper analysis on the actual viable strats (it's much more use to have experience on Spain vs Krass at imperial, than Austria vs Austria), hence making some considereable part of that experience not really that useful. Perhaps useful in some ways (hey, we are still playing Empire Earth), but not as useful as it would be if the range of viable strats had already been ruled out to what the actual viable krass are.

In the interview after the final, Elfanor said, from what I remember (though the link is no longer accessible, it doesn't open the page if you click on the interview), that he considered Gollum to have been his hardest opponent. And yes, Gollum is the guy who wrote the guide as well as the "viable" strategies for imperial age

[BigRon]

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

lol how underdog get into that game lool

[User_]

think underdog was one of BE alias

[Samuel]

wow I'm surprised someone posted the PS stats so promptly lol

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

didnt elfanor have uber mircro skills ppl said

[lightnessking.]

To make an example, if we took Nemo and krass and had them play 10 Liga 1v1s against the ten best Liga 1v1 players of the newschool, it's much more likely that ras will have a better % of victories than Nemo.

So basically the host saved the game, and ras used krass's name to play? Or... :\ I'm missing something here... nemo vs krass.. ras highest win ratio... 3 player free for all ?

[Late_]

To me, the ability to spot more details is already a major improvement. Goldeneye is no better than us at all the so called "basic skills", yet he would win almost every Liga 1v1 he played. If such a "minor details" can make you win most games, then such details need to be given the credits they deserve.

You downvote "basic skills" just like everyone is equal. I promise you, micro has a wide range of possiblities, and there is basicly no limit. Some ages have more possibilities for micro intensiv fights others have less. When you face an oponent that can macro perfectly, and raid you with 4 different groups from different sides while not losing one of his units to your defenses, you would know what i mean by superior micro to inferior one.
Your point is, there are some good at offensiv play and some good at defensiv/strategic game. Take someone who, in his prime, was perfect in macro/decission making (here playing 40-50 games a day helps alot) and was even better at microing his units. This senario basicly dosent excist in your reasoning.

Most of the strategies for Ligasetting were invented back then, that's true, and we haven't seen that many newer strategies these days. That's just the way the game is structured, if Austria is the best age at Stone Age just like Great Krass is at Mod Age, and that's something that was originally discovered back then, it's virtually impossible for anybody to come up with a better, different strategy nowadays. There will obviously not be any "major" change regarding that, and it would be impossible.

Still, just because the newschool wasn't able to implement impossible "krass" changes into the game, it doesn't mean that Liga didn't progress. It did progress in other ways, through "minor changes" that aren't easily spottable through the eye of the observer, just because a liga game isn't as "epic" as a Mod DM game, where things can be spotted more easily.

There were tons of changes, taking out the very early years where ie. sCa/SiA's/WW's/TU's/GoD-Green were really good (eu-szene btw) because they were rather creativ with their strats, later when the eu-szene went from fast to very fast gamespeed. The slow and passiv playstyle made it possible for booming everything early coming up (austria in every age was possible), changing into all out rushes, going over into controlled agression (spain for wings etc).. The hole counter system is a wheel basicly, only tributed rushes were kinda hard to play with (sCa came up with some very odly played tributed shit in all ages, getting as far as drawing us in team-league) and where rather special in that "wheel". I could tell you storys of strategys and league games for weeks ..

Age 8: Imperial Age:

Here you have the choice between boom+inf (with Austria), rush inf (Austria or Kingdom of Krass) or just a classical development (but slow) with Spain (Spain having the best bonuses of the game for inf, but doesn’t have bonus on peons nor on hunting&#8230

This was from a popular guide back then. Now, this just makes me wonder ... did RS_Gollum even have any idea how to play Imperial Age?
_Boom+inf = instantly dead against any Imperial Age play from nowadays, you see Austria and forward rax with Spain and gg.
_Rush inf = funnily enough Gollum doesn't even consider Spain in regards to rushing with inf, though he seems to consider Kingdom of Italy as a viable choice. Pretty weird to me to be fair. As for Austria, it just blows in this age as Spain has just got the upper hand.
_Slow development with Spain: incredibly, Gollum, unhappy for not having mentioned Krass before, puts it at the end and he recommends a slow development(!!), knowing that the only way for the Austrian player to win against Spain at this age is surviving long enough to make a mix cav+inf (and therefore giving the enemy time to mix)?

Now I wonder ... if one of the best EU players from back then didn't have any clue on how to play Imperial Age, why should I even think that he was that knowledgeable. Why would he be so great at finding those kind of tiny details (that would let Goldeneye win almost any krass game) when he's still wondering what's best to do?

You should always consider that at that time there were hugh shifts in meta. Team-strats were not as finalised as in the next 1-2 years. And even though you like your RS-players very much, not everyone was playing on the same basis or strategys.
Imp is an age where several strategys might come out ahead in a 1on1, here it usually depends on the map and your fav-style. Spain is the agressor against austria, however its not as easy as you paint it out. Cav combined with a very good spot (sadly the random maps ee provides tend to be bugged a tiny bit too often) and good micro can buy you the time to get into indu, where you hardly need any mix, your cav is once more superior and can win, based ofc on the fact you can micro your cav really good. It all comes down to pressure and positioning and your spot. Though i would rate spain with the highest rate of winning, spain pikes are just a fucking pain in the ass early on... Its imperial.. its one of the only ages where nothing is set in stone.

Whilst it's true that there was the chance for wider experience, it's also true that part of this experience might have been ... "useless", a waste of time basically (not all of it obviously, but some). Gollum could have all of the experience of this world in playing Austria v Austria at Imperial age, but make him play against any average newschooler, he will Spain forward rax him and Gollum loses. What was that experience for?

Yes, if i remember correctly it was insane who was introducing spain as the all out way of playing imp (not that he invted it, there was always someone before, but he played it on a regular basis). I think one of the most boring ages ever to start with though.

Football might be a game by endless possibilities where everything is possible, however EE is a videogame that puts some limits. You are bound to abide by what the game offers, and that includes the fact that, simply said, Spain just >>> everything else at Imperial Age. Some oldschoolers might have taken a lot of time before realizing it (and went through "Krass v Krass" kind of games or even Kingdom of Italy), whilst newschoolers already knew from the beginning what the best option was, giving them more time (as well as more years, given it's now 2013) to look into tiny details to assure victory.

No, football abites to rules aswell. I get the feeling that your boundaries past-stategic wise are rather limited. You know all the recent stuff well, but belive me, just cos you come up with some RS-guides, there were people with higher strategic-iq than them. One reason why hilbi was that good early on.
If you have never lost a game against kingdom of italy, you do not have a waste experience in wing vs. wing situations, or you basicly never faced someone who played a perfect koi. Perfectly played they have some timings to beat spain in a wing vs wing situations. THose time windows are small but they are there.. hardly worth the rist in my opinion though, specially when someone knows the koi player very good. Doesnt apply to all "spain"-ages though, if i remember correctly its a reni strategy.

I'm not trying to say that newschoolers are better, I'm just trying to have an objective look at things and at the fact that the game had more players back then to have experience comes with the downside of having to investigate through civilizations and strategies BEFORE even coming up with in-game details, and that's something that's just as important.

thats why we played 30-50 games per day over years... we even knew why strats where changed and what came before and why. Understanding the "wheel" of counter and balance is part of experience you gain by playing alot.

Also, don't forget that dividing oldschoolers and newschoolers as phenomenons that took place in two different contexts is wrong, as I hardly think it's possible to believe that every newschooler suddendly stopped playing as soon as newschoolers started playing. It's much more believeable to believe in the fact that at some stage they intermingled.

good players always left in waves, whenever a new game was coming out that was promising. aom, wc3, warhammer etc. Since they knew each other rather well, most of them left together or because the others left.

If you have a look at the 2002 (end of the year final) played in Paris between Elfanor and Flimzam and krass, you will see that some things just wouldn't look quite right as of today. I used to have the screens of the games (NW_Fabiossowa had found them on a site) and one of the games was Copper Age.
My first question that comes to mind is, why would Flimzam, in that moment a representer of the 2 supposed best players, would start his krass by TCing is forage settlement when there's not even wood nearby, just because he has hunt next? That's suicide in copper age, and you play it in a final?

The statistics after the game showed an interesting 3500 ps for Elfanor and a 700 ps for Flimzam. It also showed something more interesting, they both aged up to bronze later than 18 f11 (again, instant death nowadays).
Oldschoolers in the 2002 and possibly early 2003 stage hadn't yet ruled out what are today's unviable strategies, and the spectrum of viable strategies was wider, which makes it harder to conduct proper analysis on the actual viable strats (it's much more use to have experience on Spain vs Krass at imperial, than Austria vs Austria), hence making some considereable part of that experience not really that useful. Perhaps useful in some ways (hey, we are still playing Empire Earth), but not as useful as it would be if the range of viable strats had already been ruled out to what the actual viable krass are.

In the interview after the final, Elfanor said, from what I remember (though the link is no longer accessible, it doesn't open the page if you click on the interview), that he considered Gollum to have been his hardest opponent. And yes, Gollum is the guy who wrote the guide as well as the "viable" strategies for imperial age

At that point there was a wide shift in meta-game in the eu szene. In a short time people remade the rulebook of how to play teamgames and 1on1's setting the standarts for the next years. However you should consider that the german final was held in hamburg, had a kinda sad ending. I have nothing against SuddenDeath but he was definitly not the strongest player playing there. However getting completly stomped by the runner up in the winner bracket and only winning the final cos he gets the perfect tripple res-spot next to his tc in a bo1. Making it impossible to win as spain in reni against austria. I was sitting directly next to ramirez who was without a doubt the best player in the tournament.

Edit:
Omega kinda hit the spot. While he can make a good point i kinda strugle giving my arguments more weight with my shitty english. There will never be a definitv answer to the question and we will only lose ourselfs in details. I can keep digging up old storys while you try to justify your case with some old strategy posts that are hardly worth the read without more background on events at that time. Both ways kinda lame and hardly convincing for the rest if you dont take my word as truths, which would make any argument obsolete anyways . Thats where Omegas generic aproach is strongest and most convincing in my opinion.

[Captain Nemo]

To make an example, if we took Nemo and krass and had them play 10 Liga 1v1s against the ten best Liga 1v1 players of the newschool, it's much more likely that ras will have a better % of victories than Nemo.

So basically the host saved the game, and ras used krass's name to play? Or... :\ I'm missing something here... nemo vs krass.. ras highest win ratio... 3 player free for all ?

Tool edited sam's post so it says krass all over it. It originally said ras and made good sense