You were not better 10 years ago

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: You were not better 10 years ago

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by tirripirri » 19 Apr 2018, 09:34

SO ARE YOU BETTER NOW THAN 10 YEARS AGO HUH GRIM?? HUH!!???

I REST MY CASE

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 19 Apr 2018, 09:24

You guys clearly have something you want to say to me. You have my attention.*

Also Fxmas has sent me a private message in September, but he has deleted it. Wonder what it contained.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Seeker » 08 Apr 2018, 18:43

Grim was always terrible at Myth.

Borderline 3 baller!

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by par73 » 07 Apr 2018, 12:44

it was only a matter of time, it's safe to say grim was much better 10 years ago. but that's only in regards to myth and his sperm count ~~

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by sharkdrivingabus » 12 Sep 2016, 15:59

Wow. It's been a while since a good drunken adrenaline meltdown.

Remember that time you got so wasted that your friends/roommates ditched you at the bar, and then you came home and shared your plans to lock them all out of the house with the whole lobby? Good stuff. Keep it coming.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 12 Sep 2016, 14:27

I'm not sure what you deleted here, but are you sure it was worse than the semen talk in the threads you posted in?

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by adrenaline » 11 Sep 2016, 09:20

Deleted.


What the fuck is wrong with me...

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Asmodian » 23 Aug 2016, 04:55

Grim is definitely better now than he ever was. It will show in the Cu classic.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by tirri » 22 Aug 2016, 10:14

grim was definitely better in 2006 than he is now just like the 2003 tirri was much better than 2013 tirri and the 2006 tirri was much better than 2016 tirri.
grim's post was just one of those horrible theories that in time was proven to be completely false.
i'm pretty sure grim feels really silly now

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 22 Aug 2016, 09:39

This was written 6 years ago, fatass.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by rabicanänpee » 21 Aug 2016, 14:22

grim you were raid h00r. and yes i was better 10years ago, i'm not gonna argue with you , IM GONNA FIGHT Y_OU ; 1ON1 RIGHT NOW


if i lose, it means i'm worse now , if i win, it means i win , winw winw inw situation chekmate history teacher.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by par73 » 26 Apr 2016, 16:59

This is still one of the best articles of all time.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Pogue » 23 Feb 2013, 21:47

Seriously I can't remember the last time I played myth without at least having a beer. Oh wait, December 9th, the day of my last recording.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Hadzenegger » 23 Feb 2013, 21:15

people play myth sober?
pogue and i are either drunk or snorting lines of a whey/creatine hybrid every game we play

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Renwood » 15 Feb 2013, 09:07

Punky said: Gore physics always make dying more fun


Well then you will enjoy the Myth II HD tagset!
Not only does it have more body parts then any myth plugin ever made and more dead bodies, but it also has Flowing Blood Physics.
So when you have battles on steep hills its easy to see the blood flowing downhill and making cool stains on the map. It looks really good after a Sudden Death Battle on Hot Springs Lmoth's mid hill.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by par73 » 14 Feb 2013, 01:48

I was better 10 years ago

as in better off not knowing anyone from this community yet because the majority of them turned me into an asshole, save the exceptions of ska, dean ween and seeker. bonus points goes to gramps, the elfoid and his two partners in crime.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by punkUser » 06 Feb 2013, 18:15

tirri wrote:it's a shame myth is dead because playing myth drunk or just tired and dying badly was usually pretty fun

Gore physics always make dying more fun :)

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 06 Feb 2013, 14:10

I've played myth sober like twice in the past 3 years.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by tirri » 06 Feb 2013, 13:42

it's a shame myth is dead because playing myth drunk or just tired and dying badly was usually pretty fun. now the only game i play is sc2 and playing it tired is just highly annoying

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Renwood » 06 Feb 2013, 08:42

That is why I no longer Drink And Myth.

Its fun, but a horrible idea.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Flatline » 06 Feb 2013, 05:36

GiantKillerGen wrote:Well to me at least the most interesting part of this discussion touched on the fact that Myth requires a lot of mental focus. In all of the excuses of lack of care, sleep, sobriety, or whatever else, what justifies them all is their hindrance to mental focus. Even with "care", that really is just the additional effort it takes to really focus mentally. The same as you would need to while taking a test or something.



Well yes focusing well certainly improves your play (unless you actually just suck real bad at the game).
If i care more i certainly seem to focus better with better results.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 06 Feb 2013, 05:07

Well to me at least the most interesting part of this discussion touched on the fact that Myth requires a lot of mental focus. In all of the excuses of lack of care, sleep, sobriety, or whatever else, what justifies them all is their hindrance to mental focus. Even with "care", that really is just the additional effort it takes to really focus mentally. The same as you would need to while taking a test or something.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Flatline » 06 Feb 2013, 04:04

GiantKillerGen wrote:well it is always convenient to say whenever one plays bad it is because one didn't care. and when one happens to play well you can point at it and say, "look! that was because I cared" in an attempt to further prove your previous excuse of not caring. it is further amusing when these same individuals are the first ones to bring it up. sound much like an excuse? you don't think people use care as an excuse sometimes or as a defense mechanism in their own mind? I guess it is impossible for anyone in the myth community to happen to have a bad game or play poorly on their own without a lack of care.

Also why do you keep bringing up your performances? probably no one remembers them.

You chose to only respond to the care thing, the least interesting part. so I presume you do not have a response to anything else I wrote?


Only brought up my own performances because that's the easiest one i can think of on the spot. Well it's probably the only one that makes sense since I have a pretty good idea of how much i cared at the times I mentioned and how i rate my play at the times. Seemed fairly logical. Pretty hard to gauge someone's real care level unless you are gauging your own.
Basically was just an honest appraisal of my care level / play level at the times I mentioned and I think it's pretty much accurate.
Pretty much ... the more i cared = generally the better I played.

Yeah sure care is used an excuse sometimes when people have a bad game. No need for me to be doing that. If i had a bad game or did terribly in say "the draft tourney" then it was because i fucked up or made mistakes or got outplayed, not because I didn't care. Yet again, generally i played fairly well there and I myself attribute it to actually caring about playing well and making a lot more of an effort to play this game again well. Hasn't been the case for a while.

Other points I'd have to reread your post closer. Although if I was to debate i'd sooner debate this stuff that comes up every year (LOL) during the mwc season when more people could get a laugh about it or something.

Is there going to be another mwc?

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 05 Feb 2013, 17:27

well it is always convenient to say whenever one plays bad it is because one didn't care. and when one happens to play well you can point at it and say, "look! that was because I cared" in an attempt to further prove your previous excuse of not caring. it is further amusing when these same individuals are the first ones to bring it up. sound much like an excuse? you don't think people use care as an excuse sometimes or as a defense mechanism in their own mind? I guess it is impossible for anyone in the myth community to happen to have a bad game or play poorly on their own without a lack of care.

Also why do you keep bringing up your performances? probably no one remembers them.

You chose to only respond to the care thing, the least interesting part. so I presume you do not have a response to anything else I wrote?

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Flatline » 05 Feb 2013, 07:12

Don't really understand the difficulty of grasping the care thing.

So anyways.

Last few or more mwcs (before mwc 12) = Didn't really give a fuck (care level low) = Hardly played any myth = Generally played terrible if i showed up.

MWC12 (at the start of it) = Didn't really give a fuck (care level low) = Hardly played any myth = Generally probably played terrible.

MWC12 (Mid to end of it) = Cared more (care level medium) = Played quite a bit more myth = Generally played quite a bit better.

Draft Tourney = Cared (care level mid-high) = Played quite a lot of myth = Played fairly well

Not sure what is difficult to understand about this really?
Not saying every game i played towards the end of mwc or draft tourney i played brilliantly, but yep i definitely played a whole lot better when my care factor was higher.
Sure I signed up for mwc's in last few years, and often showed up for matches. That in itself really doesn't mean you care all that much besides maybe you want to have some fun on an old game that you like, a game you really don't play anymore besides the annual mwc or whatever.
If I had real care to play excellently or do really well in past tourneys I would probably log on a month or something before mwc started and actually play some myth so that I'm not jumping on in QR1 and realizing i've forgotten half the key commands and shit again.

Not that interested in debating it but I dont find the care concept difficult.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 05 Feb 2013, 05:11

well flat, it still doesn't explain those terrible distributions. Nothing can explain those horrendous distributions except a lack of knowledge of the game. The archering in clumped line formations back and forth is also amusing. If there are some good films though then let's see them.

As you just pointed out, you can be worse at the game from lack of care, lack of sleep, drugs, alcohol, rust, etc. That hasn't changed since the dawn of time with regard to any kind of game, and really any kind of mental task. It is a very mental game, so obviously if you compromise your mental capacity then you will play much much worse. However the point is that something had to have caused you to be playing worse because you don't just unlearn things in this game. It doesn't say anything about player skill or player knowledge of the game.

Had you done drugs, had lack of sleep, etc. in 2001 which made you play worse would you then start arguing that 2001 was the worst year for myth? If I pull an all nighter partying before a final exam the next morning for a math class, and then do poorly, does that mean everyone in the class must have gotten worse at math? Does it even necessarily mean that I forgot how to do math? Your individual life situation at some specific point in time has 0 relevance to this discussion regarding the community's progress in skill at large.

Since you seem to discuss them both as they are same thing, I think that explains why you have always had some kind of difficulty in separating the two and why you cling to this perspective. Keep in mind also that you are older and that back then you would be younger and quicker which would further contribute to this illusion. It is entirely possible that 2001 was the year of your personal best myth skill, that doesn't mean it was also for the entire community at large. This would only make sense as you were certainly closer to the top of players back then, than you have been at any point since then.

Also as grim mentioned, lack of care (while prevalent) is the least relevant excuse because it is a competitive tournament that requires you to sign up and show up for. Lack of care in random rabble games just bullshitting around? Sure, that happens much more often. However if one didn't care to compete then one wouldn't bother signing up and showing up, especially at some ridiculous hours that you had to wake up for. It is possible to care less, but to claim to not care at all is a complete exaggeration and clear defense mechanism that lives in denial to justify a poor performance or loss. The other excuses of lack of sleep, not being sober, etc. are certainly way more valid when they are actually true. But who's fault is that then? You certainly can't take anything away from those that beat you because of your own lack of readiness for a pre-scheduled match.

Also just looking at you talk about your performance in mwc11 which you have brought up multiple times within the last year, seems to demonstrate some level of embarrassment over it. I am pretty sure no one even remembers or knows what the heck you are talking about as those were mostly irrelevant matches over a year ago. That is showing some level of care, while you are simultaneously claiming you don't or didn't care.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Flatline » 05 Feb 2013, 03:10

Oh jesus

err uhhhhhhhh

In this uhh hatchet job or such from a few years back now.

Firstly - Grim of course only picked out games people did horrible , stupid stuff etc etc in. But that's the point of the article. Pretty sure theres films from same era , say 2001 which dont look much different from films from today. ie. Decent strats, Unit distribution, Clicking, Teamwork and also horrible mistakes by players (people make horrible shit mistakes every game i think i've ever been in).

Secondly - It's indeed possible to be terribly worse at this game than you used to be......Even in a tournament setting.
Best example is I don't remember which exact mwc....Umm maybe mwc11? Yeah ok whichever mwc i was on tcox team or something that GOD COPS captained all of our games and we ended up eliminating grim'/ducky/karma/enc team in the de.
Holy fucking lol jesus shit did anybody see my play that particular year? Maybe 2 years ago?

I was absolutely playing worse than in 2001 or maybe even 2000!. My play was uhh ,,,,,,, it makes me laugh to think about it. I remember getting locked by NC or something 2 minutes into dun caric fr or somethign really bad. Like losing 18% units 2 minutes in to a single lock shot and all sorts of shit. Pretty sure i played completely terrible every game that year. Like more terrible than 99 and stuff even.

Few excuses for this.
(a) Pretty sure every match was like 3 or 4 am my time that year. Thanks to fallbacks.
(b) Complete lack of care. Think i played mazz demise only besides showing up for mwc games.
(c) Rust. Dint play enough normal myth to make it go away
(d) I think i was probably doing some cool drugs and stuff too.

But yes you can definitely be much worse now than you were back then. Pretty sure i proved that in mwc11 and it wasn't that everybody in mwc11 was so much better, but that i was so much worse.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 04 Feb 2013, 19:49

well Sam an archless trade is going to be best for gimble ctf. However for an ffa, you might want archers because as soon as you expend your pus you have no other good way to kill an enemy dorf when you go to fight the next team. So that is a gamble, more archers increases your chances of losing the first fight, but also increases your chances of winning the rest. Vice versa for the archless trade. Also you can usually have a better shot at more dominating wins conserving more of your % from winning artillery based fights as opposed to melee ones.

I don't really like thinking in terms of FFA though, it is a crapshoot and full of politics that dilutes the emphasis on actual skilled fighting.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Myrk » 04 Feb 2013, 17:10

You guys really love overanalyzing Myth

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by switch » 04 Feb 2013, 01:31

I'm typing this as I watch the half-time show. Beyonce is dancing around in high-heels and leather, while fireworks explode in the background. There are two patterns of doctrinal thought in this thread, GKG and his supporters are advocates of super rationality (type one analysis- "strategists"- in the Graham Alison model) and everyone opposing are advocates of meta realism ( "sociologists" - type two or type three advocates- some stress organization others personality).

GKG explains the core of his myth philosophy, supported by the record:

How do you think mwc's can be won in such dominant fashion as they have been the last 2 years? It isn't necessarily because of that much better of player skill and team synergy. You have to set your players up for success so they maximize their own potential, and thus the team's potential.


I'll call these groups school A and school B. School A advocates acknowledge that some degree of information imperfection exists. Both sides will attempt to maximise the precision of their information, so that neither side can be caught acting in an irrational manner. The role of the myth captain is to acquire the information needed to win and process it as it comes in from the nodes in the hierarchy (the players, the units, internal/external communications, map strats...). The myth captain here is constantly running OODA loops and delegating updates to the team which reacts in turn. No plan survives contact, so if the opposing captain is acting in a super rational manner game skill (bricolage) becomes increasingly important. Getting inside or disrupting the enemy's decision loop is a common teaching of this doctrine. School A advocates tend to write articles about how to improve player skill because player awareness is integral to skill and the School A captain cannot captain effectively if game awareness is low.

Dantski explains why super-rationalism is not always viable or desirable:

I'd pretty much give Spartain Ken Thrall for flag defence and a couple of other players 2 pus ghols while 4 of us held like 80% of the units. However this is meant to be fun for everyone so I'm not going to do that.


In school B it is assumed that random elements in the myth game (duds, break out players, lag, morale,"fun", dumb luck, drunk mythers who don't show up, real life commitments, ) mean that school A has over-stated the significance of superrationalism. Different advocates stress the importance of elements which address the random elements: team cohesion, individual skill, dynasties, superior technology, and so on. The myth captain in this school is effectively a team manager: establishing organizational or team norms through trades / distributions / practices. Watching player reactions, focusing on the building of morale, confidence (through strats perhaps). School B advocates tend to write articles about game history and metagame because they assume that skill varies radically year to year, player to player. Metagame is also correlated with carefactor. School B captains cannot captain effectively if their players are not interested in being managed "scientifically". They feel motivating towards myth care is crucial to success.

I really liked Grim's original article which IIRC argued that myth "skill" modernity emerged in 2001 once all the "moves" were known and has improved only in marginal increments since then which is a typical School B position. GKG's response is of course that more skill/awareness is needed because the assumption that skill has "peaked" means intrinsically that his own captaining won't continually improve. Nevertheless, school A clearly holds the high ground in 2013 because, as things stand, the bricolage OODA loopers have won several MWC championships in undeniably decisive fashion.

However, I don't think there is as much difference between school A and B as this debate implies. I think you wankers are creating controversy because you're bored and there are only 50 players left, etc.

Football again. Jones ran 108 yards or something. The Ravens are crushing San Francisco and now the power is out.
The system, is down.
The system is now up. San Francisco is back in the game!

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 03 Feb 2013, 06:56

Milk Man wrote:
tirri wrote:that have ground my gears


Wow this is very advanced grammar for a non-native english speaker.


Eh?

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ » 03 Feb 2013, 05:13

tirri wrote:that have ground my gears


Wow this is very advanced grammar for a non-native english speaker.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by tirri » 02 Feb 2013, 21:09

grim wrote:There's a few bits and pieces I don't agree with anymore, but the biggest difference in my mind these days is in regards to the fact that one can't get worse at this game. These days I tend to think it is possible to have been better in the past, just not in the 01 era for obvious reasons. Personally I think this is due to mental commitment one has to this game or tournaments he plays in.


so basically what grim is saying here is that i have been right all along, ie i was at my best during 02-04 when i won all my tournaments and really cared. meanwhile stupid people read grim's article back when he wrote it and were like lolz tirri you so stupid, look how badly you played EVEN THOUGH GRIM ANALYZED FILMS BACK FROM WHEN I HAD NOT WON A SINGLE TOURNAMENT. this really grinds my gears grim, its in the top 10 of myth things that have ground my gears

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 02 Feb 2013, 18:35

Fair enough.

But from my point of view, I didn't concede anything. So not sure if you are still misunderstanding what I said.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by NewMutator » 02 Feb 2013, 10:03

Is there something more to be learned from this discussion?

By saying "caved" I meant that you conceded the point I was trying to make, without acknowledging it. I just assumed you were unaware of doing so, though I guess it's possible you were. Poor choice of words on my part, my apology.

The archer thing is really valid and I remember you did mention this in connection with Sormiron which was a conversation I loved btw. I don't know if I see it the same as you, that's all, and it certainly doesn't seem fair to say people are stubborn for seeing it differently. I'll even go so far as to say that your success in the game indicates that you do have a unique perspective and that if it weren't unique, your skill set wouldn't be either. I don't know if decrying other players for being stubborn suits your reputation but I suppose at your level you can get away with it.

My intent with these posts is to disclose my opinion in the hopes that someone finds it useful in formulating their own. I'm sorry if they're interpreted otherwise.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 02 Feb 2013, 09:12

Well you said that I caved on something I said previously without realizing it, when I didn't. So if you weren't implying me contradicting myself then you were just putting words in my mouth. Whatever.

Well I didn't see those differences in the trades. I would be inclined to say Ratking's was certainly superior then based off of your information. CTF is the rushiest gametype in the game. Trading for too many archers is the #1 reason people handicap the push factor of their forces. Again, I didn't look at the film though.

Umm, I said if the trades are very slight, for example plus or minus a few standard melee or something like that, then yes it is subtle and negligible. I am not sure how you can argue that point. Given the vast variety of other factors that weighs in on which team wins in a particular game, that is going to be very negligible.

This discussion is starting to remind me of the time I tried to convince Sormiron that archers are not good on whatever really pushy map we were shoutcasting at the time. I don't really understand the stubbornness of players, and the general lack of willingness to listen to others who have vastly more tournament experience. I guess that is why they stay at the level of play that they do though.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by NewMutator » 02 Feb 2013, 06:24

No you didn't contradict yourself, but I never said you did either. I agree with you except for where you say "subtle" and "negligible" to describe differences in trades. Those terms are relative, and I'm inclined to see them as kind of arbitrary. You can argue that point if you want, it doesn't matter. My feeling is, though, that there is less variety in trades possible than we might think, due to maximum values for unit types--those points have to be used up somehow. As such the "minor" differences between trades are more important than it might appear, and in fact Myth is a game where one fewer warrior can turn the tide of the battle in certain situations.

That said, I certainly appreciate your point of view and find a lot of value in your perspective on the mechanics of Myth. I appreciate your willingness to speak on the subject at length.

Also, the trades on that Barrens map were similar, but also very different in some key ways. For instance, Ratking took only 9 archers, maxed out on ghols, and took 2 journeymen, whlie Dantski took 1, less than half max ghols, and nearly double the archers. In all other respects the trades were nearly identical.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 02 Feb 2013, 05:14

Punkuser - great follow-up commentary on counter-trades, you get an A+. Working off of your points, here are all of the key points that deny the theory of counter-trades:

-Fast powerful melee units which allow the faster forces to pick the time and place of fights
-Imbalanced unit trading costs which constrict the variety of trades
-Diminishing returns on force multiplier units such as dwarves which further constrict the optimal range and variety of trades for artillery units
-Having a finite map space which allows you to pin the opponent to imaginary "out of bound" limits
-Having a finite game clock which allows pushier forces to run the timer out and rush at the end

None of these things exist in the context of a real-world military situation. I think that is what makes it to be such a hard concept for people to grasp, because of course counter-strategies exist in the real-world. So there are counter-strategies in the real-world, just not really in myth.

LN - I didn't countradict myself. I never said lump all "good trades" into the same category. I said if you come up with a few subtle variations of the same trade you might as well put them in the same category (instead of considering each as separate and different) since the differences are going to be completely negligible. There could be some very different "good trades", but one will always be better.

Also as punk said, I don't think anyone is suggesting that better team synergy cannot defeat a superior trade / strategy. If that was the case then I would win many more of the rabble games I captain. I am pretty sure we went over this already, obviously there are multiple factors that contribute to victory, but that doesn't mean that that one factor (the unit trade) wasn't better. They are all factors, and maximizing all of the factors is the key to victory. Also, better unit-trades contribute to better distributions, team synergy, strategies, and everything else. Like I said before, everything starts with the unit trade. It is the very first thing the captain does before anything else takes place in the game. How do you think mwc's can be won in such dominant fashion as they have been the last 2 years? It isn't necessarily because of that much better of player skill and team synergy. You have to set your players up for success so they maximize their own potential, and thus the team's potential.

Dantski - I am sure you are right. I never looked at the film and saw what happened really. I thought the trades of both teams was pretty similar, yours certainly seemed fine. What you say with trying to accommodate the newbies is certainly valid. I guess I was only pointing out that my squad wasn't that great but every other one could have been fine and it could have been negligible. (btw plz feel free to grab my dorf, look at the film and watch me desperately trying to task that monstrous squad of mine in like 3v1, 4v1 situations. I wanted to cry for help but too busy to type.)

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by NewMutator » 02 Feb 2013, 02:38

That's a pretty good breakdown of what happened that I didn't think to speak to. By trying to be a hero, Xmas took himself out of the game (until he could reach the enemy flag) and seeing an opportunity, Ratking and Co. pounced.

I didn't mean to imply you did a terrible job, Dantski! I'm pretty aware of some of the challenges of being a captain and openly admit that you are probably better at it than I. I think it just goes to show that a game's narrative is ultimately subjective to a degree. There are different ways to read it, and in the end it may or may not be futile to speculate if it could have turned out any other way.

That said I disagree on Spartain Ken: I think he could have done better minus the thrall. But I don't really fault you for that because as you say, it's mostly for fun. I was just using that game of an example, hope you don't mind my being blunt. I fully acknowledge that my POV is not always exhaustive.

And Punk, that's a good point about stuff like ghol bombs in standard trades. I actually thought about that, but a lot of that is done as a kind of afterthought whereas in some places it's the centerpiece of a given strategy. One example is that map with the forest giants and thrall elite (can't remember the name offhand). Do you sink unit trading points in wights to manually pop in the chance that you get some extra puss? Or do you dump the points in something tangible like extra melee. This might be a bad example (because I think most players would choose the extra puss) but the principle is essentially the same, and that is that some trades that can confer an advantage, though that advantage is subject to chance, might over time outperform trades that are, for lack of a better word, optimized in a reliable way for the game settings.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Dantski » 02 Feb 2013, 01:32

LN wrote:My analysis is basically that while Ratking's trade is quite pushy (using the ghols to take map control), I am not sure if it's the best possible trade or even if the best trade would resemble it, though it served his team well this game. Part of the reason that it worked had to do with the unit distribution of Dantski, in my opinion. The archers were spread to too many players, and some players had more units or unit types than they probably should have had as a result of that distribution. For instance, GKG had multiple dwarves, Spartain Ken had perhaps too many unit types to be able to use them effectively, and Vie and myself were unable to protect ourselves because we're noobs. Players like Arzenic probably should have been where Vie and I were, while V and myself could have been rallied around GKG's core force. You might say that that isn't distribution, but in my mind it is since location to me is an essential component of distribution.


Honestly there's one very good reason why we didn't win that game, Father Xmas. You've pointed out pretty much everyone else on the team without realizing this which is kinda bad TBH. The basic flow of that game was south got rushed and died terribly, mid then got pinched by their south and was forced to retreat while north had to retreat to flag to help out. Why did all this happen? Quite simply because we had 1/3 of our warriors off on a field trip to the edge of the map, now sometimes this can work out and it very nearly did in this game if Ratkings team had been sloppy and not contested. However by taking 1/3 of our warriors out of the fight it left our 2 remaining players with warriors with 3 flanks to cover. Arzenic correctly moved N to block Cruniac, Browning stayed middle to keep Adren in check, however we didn't have our 3rd group to keep south safe. Our south may have died if Xmas stayed by his team still but it would have been down to poor individual play than a tactical error and even losing in that case would surely have hurt Ratkings team more.

As for the unit splits *shrug* I think you're misunderstanding to a degree. If I was to do what was best for the team and make our chances of winning as good as possible, I'd pretty much give Spartain Ken Thrall for flag defence and a couple of other players 2 pus ghols while 4 of us held like 80% of the units. However this is meant to be fun for everyone so I'm not going to do that. I disagree that giving a bad player 4 archers a dorf and like 6 thrall is too many unit types because any units to a bad player is too many if you follow that train of thought.

I'm not going to be keeping 20-25% to myself if I can split 90% of the units between other players, I'm not trying to be a nice guy or a great captain by doing this, I just don't like having many units when I cap so I can at least make sure our thrall don't walk off flags and I can "borrow" odd units from people. Heck the biggest thing I've noticed in the KB games is that I'm incredibly wary of taking peoples units when they are busy fighting. Maybe if I had taken one of Saspers morts in the FR game we might have held on, maybe if I took one of GKG's dorfs earlier in the CTF game we would have won. Maybe if I had yelled at various players at various times I'd be sitting on a 10-0 record so far, but goddamn paying attention to everyone and yelling at them every 10 seconds is tiring. I think Arz saw my all out captaining once and I just yelled at my team constantly until we won.

Uhhh... anyway Xmas sucks 2013

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by punkUser » 02 Feb 2013, 00:46

I don't think I actually disagree with anything you said there really LN. I was speaking more to the concept of "counter-trades", which I'm just not convinced really exist in any sort of viable way in Myth. Beyond that, yeah definitely trade isn't everything and player skill and team synergy are probably an even more important part of who wins than the trade.

Stuff like ghol bombs and adrens satchel flinging are awesome in their own right, but they were done with standard trades. i.e. they didn't have to take a risk on some strategy by trading for suboptimal units, thus I consider them sort of tangential to that discussion. Tricks and strategies definitely shift a bit with time, I just don't see a strong "trade metagame" in Myth, and I think that's at least partially due to the points I noted.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by NewMutator » 01 Feb 2013, 23:37

I feel like I got shoehorned into a position I don't really hold, which is that for any given trade there exists a counter-trade.

My response is more directed at the suggestion that there is one trade better than all others given the game settings. GKG actually caved on this without realizing it when he said that "you might as well lump [good trades] into the same category and call them the same."

I asked GKG about that particular CTF on The Barrens game because I have it casted and my thoughts on it are already made known: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a1ofCG3lbM[/youtube]

My analysis is basically that while Ratking's trade is quite pushy (using the ghols to take map control), I am not sure if it's the best possible trade or even if the best trade would resemble it, though it served his team well this game. Part of the reason that it worked had to do with the unit distribution of Dantski, in my opinion. The archers were spread to too many players, and some players had more units or unit types than they probably should have had as a result of that distribution. For instance, GKG had multiple dwarves, Spartain Ken had perhaps too many unit types to be able to use them effectively, and Vie and myself were unable to protect ourselves because we're noobs. Players like Arzenic probably should have been where Vie and I were, while V and myself could have been rallied around GKG's core force. You might say that that isn't distribution, but in my mind it is since location to me is an essential component of distribution.

As far as "optimal" trades, there is some evidence that that might change with time, if only minimally. Ghol bombs, for instance, might be a viable strategy on certain maps that justify taking wights, journeymen, and ghols, even dwarves. But a strategy like that might not be considered optimal because it lacks the reliability of a melee-based trade. An innovation in gameplay that changes an optimal trade might include for instance, using dwarves with generals (relatively recent discovery, I think), or something like Adrenaline's satchel rain technique. Their highly-variable results do not seem to make these trades optimal, but they can and often do defeat more reliable trades.

Trades are, in my opinion, altogether less important than unit distribution and player location on the map. Like I've been trying to emphasize, that is merely my opinion. But I do think that a team with good synergy can defeat a better team with a better trade. I don't expect you guys to agree because it's something that can't be objectively verified, only corroborated by specific instances that are subject to interpretation.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by punkUser » 01 Feb 2013, 20:48

NewMutator wrote:I don't know how a game will play out, which is why I'm skeptical that a "best" trade can exist.

The same thing struck a nerve when I read GKGs article last year (or whenever it was he posted it) as well, but I've softened on it a bit lately after participating in and observing a few more tournaments.

My thinking used to go that rock, paper, scissors balance implies hard counters, and Myth definitely has these unit trade-offs. Thus, one would think, for any given trade you should be able to construct a "counter" trade that shifts the selections towards the hard/soft counters for the reference trade, and therefore these is no "optimal trade" for every situation.

However, there are a number of problems with that line of reasoning that have become apparent to me over the past few years:

1) While Myth definitely has hard counters, it doesn't really have pure "rock, paper, scissors" balance in that it's not really cyclical in a lot of cases. Units like Trow, fetch, HG and so on are strictly better than some other units. i.e. there's not really a situation in which a thrall is going to do better than a myrk. Thus the only question is, is a myrk really worth as much a 4 thrall in this situation? The key is that the answer to that isn't really dependent on what the other teams trade is to a large degree... it's more dependent on the map.

2) The ability to choose when and where to fight is extremely valuable. Thus, fast units are really important, and you can't really substitute "counters" to them or you'll just get picked apart bit by bit. This is doubly-true since one place that Bungie strays from rock, paper, scissors balance a bit is that the fast units are generally very powerful melee units as well, excepting perhaps ghol (w/o pus) and spiders.

So really, I'd argue that trades are primarily determined by the map (how open it is, how many units you need to control it effectively), obviously the game type and to a large extent, the game time (i.e. how much time you have to screw around and do damage). To a large extent the game time is fairly standardized at this point based on the game mode, so it really just is map/mode dependent.

I think beyond that the other stuff that you mention - distribution, team-play, etc. - is obviously all very important, but the fundamental point about there existing "counter" builds to the optimal one I just don't think is true any more. And it's not just an argument related to probability and ability to handle unknown enemy trades, I don't think even perfect information would matter much. I mean, GKG basically has posted his strategy for trades and such and it was out there before the last MWC, so any teams playing against him pretty much knew what he was going to do, but still I didn't see any really solid "counter-trades".

At this point the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those trying to prove that trades really are a sort of rock, paper, scissors balance. I tried for a while to prove that (to myself and others), but I no longer think it's the case.

Interesting discussion in any case, and was fun reading your article again grim, although I do recall reading it a few years back.

Milk Man wrote:Also I'd like to point out that, while I agree with the article, noob grim doesn't seem to know that back in the b.net days there was controversy over whether or not custom forms where ethical or chetz, which is why a lot of top level players, especially unrankers, still weren't using them.

Yeah this was always sort of surprising to me since Bungie very clearly made custom formations (and observer constants) work online, whereas any other modifications result in out-of-sync. Why would they have put so much effort into synchronizing formations in multiplayer if it wasn't intended? I'm surprised there was anyone to whom that was not obvious even at the start.

grim wrote:When you don't really fear/care about losing, you don't strive hard enough to win.

That's obviously true, but it's also pretty stupid when people bring it up as an argument of... well... anything. It's fundamentally just an excuse for sucking, of which there are many :) "My past self could have beaten your current self" is a typical vacuous, unprovable statement. It's just an attempt to shift the performance metric towards "best per unit care" or "best per unit time played" vs just "best", and a stupid one at that. But basic human psychology compels people to try and justify failure externally rather than taking responsibility, and that's especially true for people who derive a lot of their sense of self-importance from the matter at hand (i.e. Myth skills), so those are usually the ones that you'll see making those arguments :)

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 01 Feb 2013, 18:18

All the film links on the site still work I believe.

http://www.mythgaming.net/mwc2006/match.php?id=104
http://www.mythgaming.net/mwc2006/match.php?id=103

These were pretty good. The finals were terrible.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Giant Killer General » 01 Feb 2013, 16:12

LN - Challenging you to what? If it is challenging you to find counters to my mwc finals strategies, then yes I am challenging you.

About the CTF Barrens game that I barely remember, you are asking my opinion, not giving me an example. I asked for an example. As far as my opinion on that particular game, I am too lazy to go dig up the game in question, but I seem to recall that the trades were fairly similar and the main reason we caved in was poor distributions. My squad for example, had 2 dorfs when I really would have only needed 1, or even 0. I think I even asked if anyone else wanted a dorf but no one replied. Our flank caved because it didn't have a dorf or not enough dorfs, and then we all caved in and got pinned to our flag and surrounded. I am not sure how relevant any of that is to the discussion on counter strategies though.

Grim - I think I have been saying for years that mwc06 was the peak of competitiveness and care. I was in Iraq during mwc06 so perhaps this makes me the most neutral and objective observer of it as well. Just looking at those forums, hearing about it, and looking at the high number of high quality teams leads me to that conclusion. So I will agree with you there, and trust me I wish I could have been there. As far as skill, I think this is something more on an individual by individual basis. It is certainly possible some people have dwindled some over the past few years. Others haven't. I think though that those that have dwindled due to "less care" are making it out bigger than it really is. It is factor, just not as much as some people make it out to be. As far as the overall skill of the communitiy since 06, I think it is a rather dumb argument to get into, let's just say that it is obviously going to be very similar. I think the community as a whole is pretty much fully matured with the skill and has been for some time, probably since 06. Instead the differences are more on the individual by individual basis, for better or worse, and each person has their own personal reasons for that. I think we are in general agreement though.

p.s. - does anyone have the mwc06 finals films or any good matches from that mwc for that matter?

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by Vantobia » 01 Feb 2013, 14:41

hah, i still remeber using several side by side rows of shallow encirclement for large archer battles in Desert. It worked great back in the day, especially when alot of others were using wide box formation for archers, or 1 massive line which spread archers out so far away from the action they ended up being forgotten about for the rest of the game :P

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by c⁄J⁄Iılk c⁄J⁄Iån ◊§t◊ » 01 Feb 2013, 12:59

grim wrote: My azz. I didn't really played unranked in 99 and the biggest rank whores were editing their formations already in 99


Yea, it was considered whorish by many that's what I was saying. You were h00rish mb? There was a big thread/article about it on CP townhall and an article on it attttt... tru7h.org I think? Come to think of it though I think I'd come around to editing forms by the summer of 2001.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by grim » 01 Feb 2013, 07:18

Milk Man wrote:Also I'd like to point out that, while I agree with the article, noob grim doesn't seem to know that back in the b.net days there was controversy over whether or not custom forms where ethical or chetz, which is why a lot of top level players, especially unrankers, still weren't using them.


My azz. I didn't really played unranked in 99 and the biggest rank whores were editing their formations already in 99. Melee formations, that is.

@GKG

There's a few bits and pieces I don't agree with anymore, but the biggest difference in my mind these days is in regards to the fact that one can't get worse at this game. These days I tend to think it is possible to have been better in the past, just not in the 01 era for obvious reasons. Personally I think this is due to mental commitment one has to this game or tournaments he plays in. I found my self being royally pissed about losing in tournaments years back, but in the past few or so years not so much. I was hell bent on winning in, say 05-06 era and that certainly had an effect on how I played. Same thing applies to everyone. When you don't really fear/care about losing, you don't strive hard enough to win.

But as for the strategy part, it was maybe 80% done in 01. 20% is still a big difference. But anyway, this article is 3 years old and we had a 15 page discussion about this then.

Re: You were not better 10 years ago

Post by NewMutator » 01 Feb 2013, 06:07

Surely you're not challenging me, GKG? :shock:

The example I gave was the CTF, The Barrens game we played last Saturday. I was asking your opinion on Ratking's trade.

By the way, I have read your article. I'm pretty sure I wanted to comment on it earlier, before that feature was enabled by Toxyn.

I'll let everything slide, though, since, as you say, this may not be the proper place for this discussion.

Top