If 2011-2017 is how you are defining 'old players', then that definitely changes the discussion. I don't think I can contribute or help much with that conversation, as I don't know much about 2011-2017 (I started going inactive in 2012/13). What I do know is that there were some players that played in both timelines (such as Dingo, Blacky, Lider, Ares) and were quite successful in the new era (I see Ares is listed as a top expert on Grim Reaper's list, for example), but they were easily outclassed by older players (such as myself, not to bragg, just pointing this out for discussion purposes). I think this is the one indicator we have that can compare the skill across the different timelines.
I do think Peabody was playing around ~75 level in 2019. When I did the 3 gold records (I told Lancelot I would stop at 3, but now I'm thinking I should do another! lol), I did them with Peabody and we played a few 1v1s for old times sake. I feel as if I was playing around ~85 (after 7 years of inactivity), and I easily defeated him in every game we played, maybe 10 games or so.
20pt was popular with the average players back then, but the top players all played everything. 0, 5 and 10 were very popular with the experts who were tired of 20pt. A big reason 20pt became less popular was because SHC started reaching other countries, specifically in Persia and Asia, which caused more lag, which made people play lower pt and lower resource maps for less lag. If we're talking about 2010/2011 time, you can see some interesting stuff in these links below, showing the many settings that were played back then:
https://shctournament.weebly.com/rounds-1---4.html^ this tournament had many games with 5pt, 10pt, and 20pt, as well as many maps and rules
https://shcrusader.webs.com/january1v1event.htm^ this tournament had 0pt, 5pt, 10pt, 20pt, both nf, and nffs. Also worth noting, TGC Alien = Tbag;
TGC Jordan = Dingo; TSA Lord Storm = Blacky.
https://shcrusader.webs.com/april1v1event.htm^ this tournament also had 0pt, 5pt, 10pt, and 20pt, including different golds, gamespeeds, and rules
In these days, no matter the rules or settings, there were some players that always did well, like Dingo, Tbag, Blacky, Hackett, Lider. This was the same for the best players from 2002-2009: there were always 5-10 or so players that were almost undefeatable (except by each other) in all rules, settings, and maps.
I agree with you that there may be players now that specialize in one or two rules & maps, and would probably be very difficult to beat in those settings. That is how most games mature as they go through their lifecycle. If you look at chess, for example, the opening theory and game lines have become extremely well developed and specific through the 20th and 21st century. Players like Kasparov, Anand, Carlsen, etc, are extremely well versed and practiced in modern theory (ie, how to best play the Sicilian Defense Najdorf Variation, or the extended Ruy Lopez). The old legends (like Morphy, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer) didn't reach this level of specialization, but instead were prodigies that played everything, improvised, and crafted. This made them very comprehensive players with a deep understanding of the game, and the ability to think and play quickly in all new situations, without memorizing what to do. They were certainly no less talented or skilled than the new modern chessmasters, who have specialized training, and I think if they were to 'come back to life', they could certainly learn the new theory without much problem, given enough time. On the other hand, I think it takes quite more time to go from being a specialized player to an all-rules/all-maps player, and that some players will never be able to do that.
To put it simply, I think it's easier to go from being a master of everything to a master of one thing, than to go from being a master of one thing to a master of all. To me, it sounds like many players now "practice 1 punch 1,000 times" (for example, 1 rules, similar maps, one or two pt/gold settings, etc), instead of "learning to be an all-around master fighter." Yes it's true that if you put a master fighter against a person who practiced 1 punch 1,000 times, and said "You both must fight, but you can only use this 1 punch", the master fighter might (maybe) lose to the guy who practiced that 1 punch all his life. But I believe the master fighter is both a better fighter, and can master the 1 punch easily if he had to, while the 1-punch man could not so easily become a master fighter.
Would love to hear your thoughts. Maybe we'll find out if Dingo & Tbag decide to start playing again ;)
~ † DHK † - The Best In Game ~
Locked
![[>D-F<]~Dingo~](/file/a316884/avatar100.png "[>D-F<]~Dingo~"){kind=avatar}
![[>D-F<]~T-Bag~](/file/a118371/avatar100.png "[>D-F<]~T-Bag~"){kind=avatar}
