|
|
I have a question for all the people who say that holylord was the best ever. If it was true that holylord really was the best ever, then how can a newer player take that title from him? If he isn't actively playing, then if some amazing player emerged, how could he ever be better than him? The answer is: there really isn't any way. Even if Holylord came back and played him a few times, if he lost, he would say "well I was at my best in 2005 and I would've beaten you without even trying back then". My point is that it isn't fair to say that he was the best "ever".
Granted, maybe he would argue that he deserves the title not because of his skill being above everybody else, but because (this is something he would say, whether it's true or not) of how he brought about new strategies and tactics, and influenced the future of expert gameplay. If that is in fact true, then I'd say yes, that's worthy of consideration.
However, I'd say that top players from each generation had a different kind of struggle. Back in 2005 or before, it may have been more of a "knowledge of the game and its secrets" kind of struggle. Meaning, that it wasn't always quite as much about pure skill, as it was knowing some secret about the game that your opponent may not have known about.
But the GR generation has a different difficulty, and that is that basically the best tactics and best economies are pretty much common knowledge to everybody, so knowing a particular tactic doesn't exactly give you an advantage. You can try to come up with new tactics all you want, but in the end the best all around economy is still just the basic -- raise population, build as many workshops as you can, and then -24 to get as much gold at the end of pt -- that everybody already knows.
So players today have to deal with a community where all of the best tricks and tactics are basically common knowledge to everybody, whereas in 2005 that wasn't exactly the case, because only the top players knew all of the best tricks and secrets. If you brought some of the top players from the past and made them try to rise to the top in the community today (well I'm not sure about right now, but definitely in 2011) they would struggle because in the past they relied on having better tactics than everybody else, whereas today the struggle leans more towards applying superior/perfect game-play to a game that's limits have already been reached.
The point being, that the approach to become the best in 2012 isn't the same as it was in 2005, and some top players of today wouldn't have been able to be top players in 2005 (or 04,03,02...) and some top players from that time wouldn't have been able to be top experts today. So maybe Holylord is an exception, or maybe he was just lucky to play at the time that he did, at a time where his strengths allowed him to be on top. (...if he was)
|
Locked
![[>D-F<]~T-Bag~](/file/a118371/avatar100.png "[>D-F<]~T-Bag~"){kind=avatar}
![[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~](/file/a358544/avatar100.png "[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~"){kind=avatar}