Oldschool vs Newschool

[lightnessking.]

(sadly the random maps ee provides tend to be bugged a tiny bit too often)

Just a tiny bug...

1v1 liga.... Ever spawned this close to each other?

[Captain Nemo]

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.

Everybody has a weakness, but u were probably too bad to see it in the best players. Question: Have you seen the "newschool experts" play? If yes, which ones? Also, don't for one second think these newschool experts didn't play 24/7 just like the oldschoolers. Not like a day had 30 hours in it in 2003.

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 ..

Since u agree strats weren't initially perfect but the game kept changing due to new strats being found; what makes you think this process somehow stopped in 2004? (idk, what year are u saying liga topped?)

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 ...bla bla... is basically best.

You personally wrote the name "elfanor" as one of the all time greats. He said himself Gollum was his toughest opponent which makes for his credibility. Not all played like him, but obviously he was hugely successful with what he did. He doesn't even mention what today is the BY FAR most winning strategy for this age.

Its imperial.. its one of the only ages where nothing is set in stone.

It's actually one of the few ages where there is ONE strategy so much better than all the others.

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.

You are trying to demote the RS guide and trying to lower Gollum's credibility as an expert player. Sorry but it's not working. We know for a fact Gollum was an expert player, and this guide is one of the few actual proves being presented in this topic. All else is speculation.

Oh, and go ahead with your kingdom of italy strats, LOL. I know deathlord still plays kingdom of italy but he's well aware it's an inferior inf civ. If one can indeed beat the spain player with koi it's because theres a difference in skill level.

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.

Sorry but playing the "playing a lot card" is actually the newschooler's card. You got a maximum of 3 years of EE for your oldschoolers, whereas newschoolers have up to 10 years of experience, and trust me when I say it's been very active playing.

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.

Again, you are suggesting an improvement in gameplay. When exactly do you think the skill level topped? Whenever we throw names out or times we thought you'd consider the prime of EE you demote this and say it improved later on or that player wasn't really that good. Start being specific.

EDIT:

As in response to sam's post I think he's completely right about those tiny details making a big difference. It's the same thing in mod dm, it's not as epic as you think. It's new ways of macroing that comes into play, or slightly different unit combinations.
Good example with ras and I for liga 1v1. Ras is much too knowledgeable and would know exactly what to do whenever I have a move. It's the exact same thing that gives me a high win % in mod dm. I simply know the set better than almost anyone. If you look at goldeneye play there is absolutely nothing impressive about him. But you start realizing that he just wins a whole fucking lot. Goldeneye just plays it simple, makes zero mistakes and always does the right thing, his timing is really what makes him so good.

On a final note I'd like to say I don't think the micro level has improved over the years, it might very well have fallen on average. But even very superior micro will fall to a superior strategy. You only need adequate micro in most ages if you're ahead on strategy.

[Omega]

@Nemo

I'd definitely agree that there have been some incremental innovations in Mod DM since say, 2004 or so to now. I don't think there's anything that's really a radical difference, and also, I think a lot of the differences are easily attributable to the map size switch. For the longest time, people played larger maps, then switched to smaller maps; I don't think the meta ever really had the time to fully adapt to the changed size. I was mainly referring to liga in my post since everyone else has been talking about liga, but I think that those statements in my post manage to describe almost all settings very well.

I don't think BE is the best example to use for a player returning...

Yes, time is definitely important; I think my post was clearly set within the framework of time, so I didn't feel the need to explicitly mention it at all. I'd say that the line should be drawn around 2004, but it's obviously somewhat debatable as there's no way to have a clear cutoff. Anyway, I think you need to consider that first, a lot of the skilled players left the game, or played much less. Second, they mostly isolated themselves from the worst players. Third, those that didn't had their skills atrophy considerably because they didn't play enough higher level games. Obviously, the fastest type of learning only occurs to a point, and it can only occur when there's significant enough interaction between player segments. It definitely wouldn't give the "newschool" players 10 years of the fastest learning. There's also the obvious effects of the changing player pool on the pool of talent, which needs to be accounted for as well... Thinking of how things inter-relate over time is important.

Also, it seems like part of the issue here is we can't even define (or at least agree on a consistent definition of) what constitutes an "oldschool" player versus a "newschool" player. Haha.

@Samuel

You mention these small liga innovations, but you can't seem to list any examples, or even the outcomes of the examples. If they're there, and they're observable, they can be described. Describe them.

I find it odd that you seem to lump Nemo in to being an oldschool liga player, and still did so before your post was edited inserting Krass randomly throughout. Either way, it's obvious to everyone who plays at a high level that subtle differences are quite important, especially at the upper echelons of play.

Goldeneye really isn't some phenomenal unprecedented master like you make him out to be (although obviously, he's quite a good player). I played about half a dozen 1v1 games versus him during one of my brief returns to EE years ago, and managed to win about half of them. What struck me was that he absolutely failed to notice a *lot* of subtle and not-so-subtle differences. Taking something really obvious, he had a predisposition to populate his forage instead of a mine, even when there was no possible travel time reason or strategic reason to doing so, and even when there were good reasons to do it to a mine instead (for resource reasons, strategic reasons, or travel time reasons).

As for your popular guide, you need to keep in mind that you're probably comparing something that's very early developing EE and pretending like it's from a point of relative stability in the metagame. It's like cherry-picking the time in Indy DM where everyone was clueless and you could find like Gren-Sniper-Halb-Handcannon strats being advocated by players who would be later become recognized good Indy DM players once the meta quickly became static (which really didn't take long for that setting), and then trying to use that as proof that those players were clueless at the point when they'd laugh at their own guide. It just doesn't quite work.

As another point of anecdote, let's take Warriors in Guild Wars. A lot of the very best Warriors (from top 10 teams) would describe something radically different to how they actually played in game, giving newer players terribly bad advice on the profession in competitive PvP matches.

Football is constrained by reality at a minimum, and more likely constrained by both reality and the rules of the game. There might be more viable options based on the constraints, but, that could be the case with EE too if it were somehow balanced near-perfectly.

Can you name one tiny detail that "newschool" players look to in their playing, that "oldschool" players completely ignore/ignored (using 2004 as an example year, so we don't have any 'well, 3 weeks in people didn't consider X' nonsense)? I suppose it's possible there's something that I'm just completely blind to as an "oldschool" player that stuck around longer than most, and has popped back on for brief stints (at least in terms of actually playing the game, haha) after leaving more often than most as well (of course, that's not saying much).

As for looking at the statistics of a game without any other knowledge and saying something like 'went bronze too late' or whatever, that's really not something you can do. If I actually had any old screenshots, I could show screens of an EPIC game I had versus GoodGame that lasted nearly 3 hours f11. By the time I won, I had been in Dark for about 5 f11. The game started in Pre. The way the map was set up was extremely interesting, to the point that it was very easy for us to harass and deny eco to each other throughout the game (and virtually impossible to mount a good defense against it, unless it was a sustained push, which could be defended albeit not easily). For almost the *entire* game, we were both in Bronze, stuck in a mutual cycle that was *very* difficult to break. Some out of context screenshots would make it seem like two total scrubs had played that game. But we both had player speeds over 2500, with a very high mouse click to hotkey ratio (read: no crap that people do like 'spamming keys' etc. that inflates PS artificially); it was all micro. Even the observers agreed that it was one of the most intense games they'd ever seen. This is of course highly atypical, but it happens.

@Lightness

I think anyone who's a serious and long term player has had dozens of games like that. Once you've seen enough, it doesn't even seem that odd, and you know how to react pretty much instinctively. Just like the pre liga team games where you don't get a forage patch (I hate that).

[Late_]

Everybody has a weakness, but u were probably too bad to see it in the best players. Question: Have you seen the "newschool experts" play? If yes, which ones? Also, don't for one second think these newschool experts didn't play 24/7 just like the oldschoolers. Not like a day had 30 hours in it in 2003.

Edit: i will rephrase this one. No, i wasnt too bad. You rate Gollum as a known expert. If you ask Insane, he would rate me higher. If you ask someone of Gollums friends he would rate Gollum higher. It depends on the perspectiv.
If you wanna take elf into the equation, i beat him in all of his fav ages and took even fierce micro/macro games off him.. he was still the better 1on1 player but on a good day i could even take a series off him. We never played that much though.

[Arntzen]

I did not compare EE to Chess, I just used Bobby Fischer as an example of someone achieving greatness without any competition at all.

Wrong

Are you telling me what I ment with what I said?

Tell that to a zerg player. Taking the balance of a multi-race game in certain mu as an example is useless again. You are comparing apples and oranges once more.. There is a reason why high-apm koreans dominate every szene, exceptions prove the rule.

This had nothing to do with balance, it has to do with extreme game-sense which allowed the player with overall "moderate" skills to *OMFGPWN* - even koreans with their 300APM.

However 1,2k was basicly the average apm in overall "expert" games, as you call em.

Nothing changed here.

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.

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.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.. Right now you're only sounding like black cobra which is making you loose credability every second.
IMO bring some screens like these in an actual game (going longer than 10f11 of course) or be a bit more realistic.

Liga Middle Ages 2 settle with assys to use an example of a good "raid age".

I don't think BE is the best example to use for a player returning...

Who is?

No, i wasnt too bad. You rate Gollum as a known expert. If you ask Insane, he would rate me higher. If you ask someone of Gollums friends he would rate Gollum higher. It depends on the perspectiv.
If you wanna take elf into the equation, i beat him in all of his fav ages and took even fierce micro/macro games off him.. he was still the better 1on1 player but on a good day i could even take a series off him. We never played that much though.

Perfect opportunity for you to show "newschoolers" that there is a skill gap between experts from 2002-2004 era and now. Of course, we'll be patient and let you get your rust off.

[Captain Nemo]

Everybody has a weakness, but u were probably too bad to see it in the best players. Question: Have you seen the "newschool experts" play? If yes, which ones? Also, don't for one second think these newschool experts didn't play 24/7 just like the oldschoolers. Not like a day had 30 hours in it in 2003.

Edit: i will rephrase this one. No, i wasnt too bad. You rate Gollum as a known expert. If you ask Insane, he would rate me higher. If you ask someone of Gollums friends he would rate Gollum higher. It depends on the perspectiv.
If you wanna take elf into the equation, i beat him in all of his fav ages and took even fierce micro/macro games off him.. doesnt make me better but on a good day i could even take a series off him. We never played that much though.

If u weren't too bad u would be able to see their weaknesses. I haven't ever heard of you, but you could very well be at the bests' level and still go unnoticed, but we do agree Gollum was an expert non the less (I haven't seen him play btw, Im just establishing as an expert based on what elf said). You still failed to answer the question tho.

I'd definitely agree that there have been some incremental innovations in Mod DM since say, 2004 or so to now. I don't think there's anything that's really a radical difference, and also, I think a lot of the differences are easily attributable to the map size switch. For the longest time, people played larger maps, then switched to smaller maps; I don't think the meta ever really had the time to fully adapt to the changed size. I was mainly referring to liga in my post since everyone else has been talking about liga, but I think that those statements in my post manage to describe almost all settings very well.

You are right about map size playing a role to some extend, mainly 4v4. I believe 3v3 was still medium in the old days tho. Zookrushes became a lot better in 2005-2006, and were very effective in 4v4 and 3v3 obviously. They would have had a much harder time in large 4v4. Basically in this era you had to zookrush back cause a counter wasn't really invented yet. So everybody suddenly zookrushed instead of the old time mixes. It wasn't until energy and I had a series of 1v1 games in an effort to find a counter to zookrushes that we finally had a breakthrough. Which was also where I suddenly stepped ahead of many other players in mod dm. It's important to notice energy indeed was an oldschool mod dm'er and he too had to find a new strat to cope with the new zookrushes, even on medium map. Then there was a shift in pockets going alot more fighters, which on the other hand can be almost entirely attributed to the change in map size. Later on again we had selva who invented the very much effective zook/M1 rush which put him ahead for a time. Other players adapted this strategy and were suddenly much better than before. This strategy, however, would indeed work on a 4v4 large map, perhaps even better than on medium. These are just the major changes, I could go into detail about the shifting of unit types that were popular but I think I made my point.

Longest period of time has been on smaller maps. It shifted around 2005 to mediums I believe.

Liga has also switched from 4v4 large map to 4v4 medium, at least in the euro scene. 1v1, however, has always been on small.

I don't think BE is the best example to use for a player returning...

Give a good example then please

Yes, time is definitely important; I think my post was clearly set within the framework of time, so I didn't feel the need to explicitly mention it at all. I'd say that the line should be drawn around 2004, but it's obviously somewhat debatable as there's no way to have a clear cutoff. Anyway, I think you need to consider that first, a lot of the skilled players left the game, or played much less. Second, they mostly isolated themselves from the worst players. Third, those that didn't had their skills atrophy considerably because they didn't play enough higher level games. Obviously, the fastest type of learning only occurs to a point, and it can only occur when there's significant enough interaction between player segments. It definitely wouldn't give the "newschool" players 10 years of the fastest learning. There's also the obvious effects of the changing player pool on the pool of talent, which needs to be accounted for as well... Thinking of how things inter-relate over time is important.

True it wasn't 10 years of that, but it was like 2-3 years and then 7-8 years of the slow kind. Still alot more than the oldschoolers. I know they isolated themselves, but I also know that around summer 2004 I was let into observing some of those expert games, where at that time, phantom was the top dog in the euro community. Already then, the american/"rest of the world" community seemed to have declined alot in activity as phantom was well aware he wasn't the alltime best, and BE was definitely better (perhaps cheating, megs u probably remember more about this). Im sorry I can't mention more names than BE, but I know there must have been more, I just didn't know them.

Also, it seems like part of the issue here is we can't even define (or at least agree on a consistent definition of) what constitutes an "oldschool" player versus a "newschool" player. Haha.

And at last some agreement

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

also kazter that BE who came back apparently it was a fake anyway when i asked ras about it he said be would never return too eec again

Also i think peoples micro has not improved and maybe got abit worse from where it used to be in 2006 maybe cus 06-07-08 times we played alot more so we was more developed but stil aint seen someone micro like zealot with cav archs with any of the newschool

[Samuel]

No Tricky, that BE was real, I can guarantee. Anyway, I will respond to each point in not so long. Look forward to seeing my Zabijej Tool's edited reply haha

"If you have a look at the 2002 (end of the year final) played in Paris between Elfanor and Flimzam and krass"

hahahahaha

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

why would he come back to play a p2n lol i rather play scens with megabullet lol

[Samuel]

I saw him play quite a good amount of ligasetting.

Look, to put it simply. At that time I was often speaking to ras.

He told me BE could come back, so I asked him to ask him to come back to playing.

BE came back to playing soon after.

I asked ras if that was BE and he said "yes".

Let's not deny the evidence now.

[Samuel]

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.

4 different groups from 4 different sides and not losing a single unit, that's interesting. I wonder why not even Korean pros on sc2 can do that.

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 ..

I don't deny that, however what's your point. My point is that a lot of the strategies that were implemented throughout the stage of "coming up" with viable strategies, weren't really that viable and wouldn't be viable nowadays.

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.

Obviously everybody will have a somewhat different style, and Gollum makes no exception. However I find it interesting that one of the best players from back then (and if you disagree on this, you will agree that he was at least way above average) comes up with strategies that are nowadays obsolete.

And no. Cav combined with a very good spot DOES NOT buy you the time to get to indy, unless of course it's a forage + gold + wood + hunt + iron + forest making a natural wall so that the tower can block the pathway completely, which is a spot that happens once out of 300 games. If you have the exact same map without the forest working as a natural wall, you are still bound to lose.

"It's imperial.. its one of the only ages where nothing is set in stone." ---> it's actually one of the very few ages where there's only one viable strategy. Your statement above just proves me that you actually have no idea how to play imperial age, no offense. Of course you are free to prove me wrong whenever you wish, I'm _[eC]_SamueL_ on the NeoEE lobby. I'll pick Spain, you pick another civilization and we'll see what the outcome is.

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.

Agreed, it's quite a boring age.

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.

Take two players with the same skill, Spain would win most of the times. Obviously the KoI player will have more chances if he's a better player, but we are talking about how good the strategies are by themselves, and therefore we should imagine situations in which two players of about the same skill are playing. And I'll repeat it, in that scenario, Spain will win almost every time.

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.

Most good players here played for many years, up to 24/7.

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.

True, though I find it really hard to believe that everybody disappeared all of a sudden.

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.

Let me ask you, how did Ramirez start the game?

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.

Yes, almost everything is speculation. Hence the reason why we should look at facts more closely. As for that guy being "hardly worth the read", I find it hard to believe. In any case, if we were to look at facts more closely, every oldschool player that came back and claimed oldschool was better, never even got close to the best newschoolers, even when they claimed "give me time and I'll beat everybody here". You are free to try the same thing if you want, I'll be personally happy to play you in 1v1 games, and I'm sure even Kazter/Splinter/Kirac will

Edit: i will rephrase this one. No, i wasnt too bad. You rate Gollum as a known expert. If you ask Insane, he would rate me higher. If you ask someone of Gollums friends he would rate Gollum higher. It depends on the perspectiv.
If you wanna take elf into the equation, i beat him in all of his fav ages and took even fierce micro/macro games off him.. he was still the better 1on1 player but on a good day i could even take a series off him. We never played that much though.

Then I'm sure that if you were able to play that way against Elfanor, who was supposedly the best oldschooler according to most, if oldschoolers were really better than newschoolers, you will have no problems to become as good as the best of the Liga 1v1 players nowadays, given we are worse
I'll be looking forward to playing with you and see what you can do.





I will reply to Omega later.

[Arntzen]

Btw Tricky is talking about someone ghosting BE in like 2012-2013 only playing pre while Samuel is talking about the real BE who played many ligagames in like 2010ish.

[lightnessking.]

@ Samuel, because in sc2, every unit guarantees a hit. Just like gun units in EE, they always hit.
However, there is more micro required in EE compared to sc2 (IMO), mainly because of what i just said. plus a couple of more things, but i'm not going in detail since i'm not really interested in sc2 anymore. SC2 is imo, alot easier to learn, than EE aswell. (less units, less bugs to adapt to, less economic decisions. (at bugs, think of something like, forests or hills splitting your army, this barely happens in sc2.) not to forget about the 100% fixed maps in sc2 compared to the 100% randomized maps in EE.

[Ghost]

I would like to enter and quickly leave this thread by noting that I once caught _ViE_BE_ cheating in a 1v1 Liga (Mid) game. It's the truth, seriously. I was an observer, things didn't add up, checked the stats, he glitched citizens. End of story. If I was trying to troll you, you'd probably either be able to tell very easily, or you'd be enraged.

He was in the top left, opponent in bottom right. His forage was slightly, not terribly, isolated and had already used his hunt. Opponent took the forage from him and was picking off his cits, but yet they still kept coming out

[Omega]

I would like to enter and quickly leave this thread by noting that I once caught _ViE_BE_ cheating in a 1v1 Liga (Mid) game. It's the truth, seriously. I was an observer, things didn't add up, checked the stats, he glitched citizens. End of story. If I was trying to troll you, you'd probably either be able to tell very easily, or you'd be enraged.

He was in the top left, opponent in bottom right. His forage was slightly, not terribly, isolated and had already used his hunt. Opponent took the forage from him and was picking off his cits, but yet they still kept coming out

This and several similar such instances is why I said BE is not the best example.