Mr Changsha wrote: codeblue1018 wrote: Mr Changsha wrote:Ahunda
would be a worthy conqueror. Looking at his last 100 games and his current score I can see a player who is truly, without question, superior to almost all of us.
As I said, a worthy conqueror.
There haven't been many. Those early freestyle 8 man standard conquerors had the whiff of game-throwing (controversial maybe but that is my view nonetheless), the 1vs1 freestyle conquerors preyed on the weak and while their performance could be respected -as few of us could do it - one knew that if you played them sequentially they weren't much better than 2500 level players, if at all. The 8 man casual freestyle conquerors were a mixed bunch; one or two seemed fairly legit. but others frankly shamed the site and all of them were far too narrow in their game selections. Again, you could place them on dubs, trips or quads and they would more than likely be nothing special.
There have been a few great conquerors...sadly most of them have ranged from tedious specialists on horribly skewed settings, to farmers, to secret diplomacists, to multis, to ranchers.
It is all very depressing.
Lol, are you serious? All those names Bruce and I mentioned on the 8player games were without a doubt legit; there were no game throwing in any way shape or form; the game chat clearly proves this notion, lol not too mention, I was in many of those games. As far as putting those players in team games, whether dubs, trips; everyone of those guys were above and beyond the normal, casual team player. I have no idea if you played games with us back then Changsha, but if you did, you wouldn't have A. Made those comments and B. know that these players were elite in every facet while having zero controversy to their names.
1. It is simply inaccurate to say there was zero controversy. There were blocks...
2. You mis-read what I wrote (and I wrote it deliberately carefully) regarding the competence of the players you admire. I didn't say those players couldn't play dubs, trips or quads well. Most of them could play very well indeed. It was other kinds of conqueror who I claimed were far too narrow to be worth much.
I read it just fine mate; there was ONE block and I never said there weren't issues regarding players back then, just not as rampant as today.
"one or two seemed fairly legit. but others frankly shamed the site and all of them were far too narrow in their game selections"
One or two out of all the top players; that's it mate? Who shamed the site back then besides the likes of krusher, Warsteiner etc? They were multis and the other had people suicide for them to win 6 player games, not 8 man games. Not starting a bickering match, just want to know from you who were the one or two "legit" players and the ones that shamed the site.
This has nothing to do with my admiration of players; it has to do with what the op asked; these are what conquerors need to be like. Man bro, there were so many to pick from back then and the shenanigans were much, much lower that what we deal with today. Back then the biggest issue were multis in which we still have to this day and will continue to have for as long as this site is active. Things ran well back the; all I'm saying.