Mid dm

Only for talk specifically about the Art of Conquest expansion.
Post Reply
Zeus
Epic Multiplayer Scenario Team Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:53 pm

Re: Mid dm

Post by Zeus »

@ Omega,
Yeah my post was reffering to AOC my bad, it was in response to the argument on aoc, i dont know about eec so yeah i believe you on that.
And i didnt say that mod dm was about civilizations, again that was in response to somones argument that midd dm was all about strategy and civs, i was saying that it wasnt at all, only if you werent good. I should have quoted, but yeah most of my post was to defend midd i didnt really assert much towards mod players.

Warrior_Kings Chase
Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:26 pm
Lobby Username: vg chase

Re: Mid dm

Post by Warrior_Kings Chase »

lightnessking4you wrote:
Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:. so maybe in your mind i suck at mod dm.
Not just his mind...[/quote

lol funny. but the point is u would never beat me light so just shut up when u get on my lvl u can talk bitch. u suck at ever sett in my mind even that shitty clan your in.

Warrior_Kings Chase
Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:26 pm
Lobby Username: vg chase

Re: Mid dm

Post by Warrior_Kings Chase »

Captain Nemo wrote: I think it's some wonder (or actually I don't) that none (at least not those speaking here?) of u mid dm players are concidered good allsett players."
lies!!!!!! yeah we might play mid dm. but we do play other setts. yeah we might not be a ebast at them but we can play them and beat some of the best. i understand we cnat be good as u lol lie.

taco
Civ Nazi
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Lobby Username: taco

Re: Mid dm

Post by taco »

Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:
Captain Nemo wrote: I think it's some wonder (or actually I don't) that none (at least not those speaking here?) of u mid dm players are concidered good allsett players."
lies!!!!!! yeah we might play mid dm. but we do play other setts. yeah we might not be a ebast at them but we can play them and beat some of the best. i understand we cnat be good as u lol lie.
defending the shit mid dm community since 2000 <3

ben55
Senior Member
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:49 am

Re: Mid dm

Post by ben55 »

Zeus wrote:
ben55 wrote:I beat Tornado after five games of playing middle dm. I believe Tool was a witness to this so was Abstract. We played "no siege/no religion" if that matters at all. Tornado is a good friend of mine and a mod tl player as well, and told me the strategies, but after five games of dicking around with him and other middle dm players we did played a 1v1. I won; I thought it was a fluke so we played again I won again then another and I lost then one more and I won 3-1. Granted I did win one of those games by knight spamming on a weird generated small map. Either way it wasn't that hard to pick up there was about three viable strategies to pick from. Once you had the ideal civ it just came down to production and micro, and micro is a universal skill that you learn from all settings, so it didn't take long to pick up on it. I hate when people use x sett requires more micro than y sett to explain difficulty. Some setts require different types I would argue Mod Dm is more about macro than micro while liga is more about micro than macro. I think which setting is more difficult is subjective; I see great liga players who are garbage at p2n and I wonder how? Because to me p2n is the easiest sett on this game. I don't think the skill level of the competition is subjective though and I believe mod dm had much greater depth of competition than middle dm. Creating a tougher setting to "master" since the bar was raised so high from all the competition

Just my 2 cents.
When Tornado began playing mod tl, he wasnt nearly at his best in midd dm. P-51 was talking about earlier before tornado began expanding setts. And not everyone was equal at no rules at that time, just no one played it. At the time p51 described the best out of who was still playing, in no order, would be d5 aro ak47 and then it would varie between a few other older players who still played.
To show you the skill level...if you want to compare it, which the two setts should never be compared. I will probaly put up a decent fight against you in mod dm..but you will probably win. In midd dm with rules, i will play you 10 times 1v1, and i guarantee i win all 10 times. I will even tell you my strategy so you could try to counter it. At a certain point in your playing ability, the sett turns from mere civs and strats to actuall army control. I could beat you most likely even if you completely countered me..as me, and d5 and many people who actually know how to truely play the sett have done many times.
In midd no rules, i will bet money on d5 beating you 50 times 1v1 without you winning one game. ANY day.
And to even say mod dm was more popular than midd dm is a joke. Very few people played mod dm as their MAIN sett. Like you said all sett players play it often, as a side sett. Mod dm games were very rarely hosted in the 2000's, rare as in the occurance of midd dm games which in the early 2000's were hosted every minute, along with sh and other setts. Modd dm is fun from time to time but theres barely anyone who considered it their main sett.
Point is your top 5 mod dmers who you listed( which u only named 3), are the best playing now out of no one. Matter remains that even if u were the best mid dmer right now because no one plays, if any of the great midd dmers which i can name 30 who were really good at a point, if any of them came back at any given day now adays they would be immediately one of the best playing now. Because all these people who you are comparing the set today suck.
Edit: And to be completely honest, you guys are arguing with people who have no say. The only realy people on here who have any say in an agrument about mastering set, as for our side, would be d5 and me, and probably p51. Sphinx can too, at leasst for no rules cause hes beast at every dm with no rules lol.
But no offense, i mean that, you guys are arguing with chase, and taking his 'admittance to defeat' wrong. No Offense again..but chase has not now, nor never mastered midd dm sett. He was in warrior kings, which was always the worst dm clan around, and it has been around forever. To show why he can't talk, i remember winning a 3v1 clan war against wk when spitfire(their leader) was in the game. Obviously these people mastered nothing. They simply played the sett. If you want to know about truely mastering a set, play against people who have, or talk to them. Your talking to walls, no one is around anymore whos great at midd dm. end of story.

Umm? Okay. I never compared the "skill setts" required to play each I said it is near impossible or subjective to do that. I implied the competition should be considered though, and that has nothing to with x sett being more popular than y sett I don't know how you got that I said that. There could be a million predm players that all have the intelligence of a cheeseburger, while there could be four nano sh players who on the other hand understand the mechanics of their setting and how to get the most out of every action and resource which raises the bar of competition since it is well -- super competitive.

The fact that you claim you could tell me your strategy and civ -- and still beat me 10/10 is pretty insulting. I'm not even going to go down the path of how stupid you sound/look from saying that, but keep that nonsense out of the thread.
"Nothing is impossible, the word itself says "I'm possible"!"

User avatar
lightnessking.
Nemesis
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 pm

Re: Mid dm

Post by lightnessking. »

Warrior_Kings Chase wrote: lol funny. but the point is u would never beat me light so just shut up when u get on my lvl u can talk bitch. u suck at ever sett in my mind even that shitty clan your in.
Lol, "u suck" would be >> "I suck" I suppose?
But who gives a shit, you're a retard :D.
You cannot make another post so soon after your last.

Warrior_Kings Chase
Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:26 pm
Lobby Username: vg chase

Re: Mid dm

Post by Warrior_Kings Chase »

lightnessking4you wrote:
Warrior_Kings Chase wrote: lol funny. but the point is u would never beat me light so just shut up when u get on my lvl u can talk bitch. u suck at ever sett in my mind even that shitty clan your in.
Lol, "u suck" would be >> "I suck" I suppose?
But who gives a shit, you're a retard :D.
wow that rlly hurt me. retard lol. so sad. i rlly feel sorry for u. i thought u had a better choice of mind. i guess not. i suck rlly? cmon on man. look wat clan your in? we decide this last time u want to 1v1 me i kick your ass and made u my bitch. do u rlly want to get destoryed agian?

Warrior_Kings Chase
Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:26 pm
Lobby Username: vg chase

Re: Mid dm

Post by Warrior_Kings Chase »

taco wrote:
Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:
Captain Nemo wrote: I think it's some wonder (or actually I don't) that none (at least not those speaking here?) of u mid dm players are concidered good allsett players."
lies!!!!!! yeah we might play mid dm. but we do play other setts. yeah we might not be a ebast at them but we can play them and beat some of the best. i understand we cnat be good as u lol lie.
defending the shit mid dm community since 2000 <3

lol and your point is taco? lol yeah i got there back. and we are not shit. <3

taco
Civ Nazi
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:46 pm
Lobby Username: taco

Re: Mid dm

Post by taco »

no, really mid dm players are shit, there even worse when there trying to defending there sett, acting as if it takes alot of skill to play. hell i play mid sh and would still bag the shit out of midsh players who say that it requires more skill to play then any other sett.

User avatar
lightnessking.
Nemesis
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 pm

Re: Mid dm

Post by lightnessking. »

Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:
lightnessking4you wrote:
Warrior_Kings Chase wrote: lol funny. but the point is u would never beat me light so just shut up when u get on my lvl u can talk bitch. u suck at ever sett in my mind even that shitty clan your in.
Lol, "u suck" would be >> "I suck" I suppose?
But who gives a shit, you're a retard :D.
wow that rlly hurt me. retard lol. so sad. i rlly feel sorry for u. i thought u had a better choice of mind. i guess not. i suck rlly? cmon on man. look wat clan your in? we decide this last time u want to 1v1 me i kick your ass and made u my bitch. do u rlly want to get destoryed agian?
Why would you care what kind of "clan" I'm in? I don't give a fuck no single member (including me) is super expert in all setts? We play for fun & having a life, not to be the best and have no life.
You cannot make another post so soon after your last.

Warrior_Kings Chase
Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:26 pm
Lobby Username: vg chase

Re: Mid dm

Post by Warrior_Kings Chase »

taco wrote:no, really mid dm players are shit, there even worse when there trying to defending there sett, acting as if it takes alot of skill to play. hell i play mid sh and would still bag the shit out of midsh players who say that it requires more skill to play then any other sett.
well i play mid dm dm and i am not shit. i thought u love me taco lol. ik how to play all setts. ik i am not good at some of them but ik how to play and thats the thought that counts right? it doesnt matter if u need help or taining on a set or u ahve to be good at them. i still dont get why u think mid dm and mod dm is any diff. u play mod dm and i play mid dm. no matter how much we fight u will still say mod dm take more skills than mid dm and i will say mid dm takes more skill that mod dm. so u will never prove your guys point. no matter how many time u guys dog on mid dm.

i still dont get it. its DM. any sett can be easy wtih DM. come on u get alot of gold iron food wood and stone. how easy cna it get. mod dm it just like mid dm!!!! there is no differnce except the units and the age. so i dont get why u mod dmers have to talk so much smak on how mod dm takes so much dam skill.

well cya. nice talking to everyone lol :)

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Mid dm

Post by Omega »

Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:
taco wrote:no, really mid dm players are shit, there even worse when there trying to defending there sett, acting as if it takes alot of skill to play. hell i play mid sh and would still bag the shit out of midsh players who say that it requires more skill to play then any other sett.
well i play mid dm dm and i am not shit. i thought u love me taco lol. ik how to play all setts. ik i am not good at some of them but ik how to play and thats the thought that counts right? it doesnt matter if u need help or taining on a set or u ahve to be good at them. i still dont get why u think mid dm and mod dm is any diff. u play mod dm and i play mid dm. no matter how much we fight u will still say mod dm take more skills than mid dm and i will say mid dm takes more skill that mod dm. so u will never prove your guys point. no matter how many time u guys dog on mid dm.

i still dont get it. its DM. any sett can be easy wtih DM. come on u get alot of gold iron food wood and stone. how easy cna it get. mod dm it just like mid dm!!!! there is no differnce except the units and the age. so i dont get why u mod dmers have to talk so much smak on how mod dm takes so much dam skill.
I think you'd agree generally that if we take 2 settings, everything else held constant, but one setting requires say, a lot of micromanagment and macromanagment, and the other requires comparatively very little, that we could AT LEAST say that the first setting has the potential to be of higher-skill than the other, because the maximum amount of skill allowed is higher.

We can do that for a variety of dimensions, and compare them all accros settings, relatively speaking of course. While determination is mostly subjective, and most certainly WEIGHTING of different areas is subjective, we can still come to fairly firm conclusions.

For example, if we compare Middle SH to Grenwar, we can certainly conclude middle SH has a higher maximum micro level than grenwar, and thus is likely to require more skill because of that. We can look at other things as well, like the benefits of an extremely solid economy, good defense, countering/army mix between the settings, et cetera, and conclude that for every single thing imaginable, Middle SH is equal to or higher than Grenwar, at least as far as maximum levels go. It's pretty safe to say then, that Middle SH is a more skillful setting in one sense--the only time making that assumption wouldn't be true is if the people playing the setting are relatively equal or worse at all aspects than those playing grenwar... However, if we talk in absolute terms defining skillfulness of a setting as maximum possible skill that could be required across all applicable criteria that could be measured, we've got a pretty solid case for Mid SH being more skillful than Grenwar (in both an absolute sense, and in a relative player skills sense, although the second is obviously a lot more subjective)

We can apply the same line of reasoning to Middle DM versus Modern DM. Obviously, to do this we're going to need someone who's familiar with the top-level of play across both settings, and what's required to be there. I think in that case, you can definitely say Modern DM places higher than Middle DM on the skillfulness spectrum on absolute terms. I, and others have made similar cases to that I've made above with grenwaR versus middle SH already, for why Modern DM is higher in that respect. It certainly can come down to subjective criteria, but off the top of my head, I can't think of a single skill criteria that Middle DM possesses at a higher level than Modern DM possesses it--there may in fact be a few, but it's still stacked pretty far in favor of Modern DM for a fair comparison. Even if there are a few, it's not that hard to think of a few things that Middle SH has over Liga, but I think we can all agree here that liga has a much higher absolute skill level than does Middle SH, and the same case can be made for Modern DM versus Middle Dm if you can actually think of some things skill-criteria-wise Mid DM has on Mod DM (although, again, the weighting can be subjective, so it's not like you could say it with 100% certainty, but you could certainly say it with an extremely high degree of it... just like you can't say for SURE that Grenwars is less skilled than Liga, even though it should be obvious that it is the case, there's a .000000000000000001% chance or so you've forgotten or are totally unaware of one thing about grenwars that could tip the balance entirely, etc.).

Either way, the debate isn't to put Middle DM down at all--people do enjoy playing it, and it can certainly be a fun setting to play, it's just an interesting question. The same goes for say, Middle SH versus Nano SH--I don't think you would disagree that there's a higher absolute skill level for Nano SH, and yet no one even bothers to play Nano SH becuase not enough people actually enjoy it. Similarly, you could say Pre-Pre SH has much higher absolute skill than Grenwar, but no one cares to play it because Pre-Pre SH is total shit and I'd personally play Grenwar over it anyday (and I'd play anything except CB and super-retarded-rules-games over grenwar...).

As for DM games being less skillful compared to other resource amounts, I'm pretty convinced that's not necessarily true. I mean there are certainly cases where it is, but there are a lot of cases where it is not. I'd literally put Modern DM up in my #2 absolute most skilled setting people play, right behind the #1 which is Liga. It really just depends on the age/etc. and how that makes games normally play out... If you end up with a setting where games normally play out without a lot of skills even being tested to a minor extent, you're going to get something less skillful than one where they get tested to a greater extent. Take a DM setting where you have very little testing of skills at all, comparatively, like say, Prehistoric-Prehistoric DM, and it's easy to see how it's extremely crappy compared to say Pre-Pre SH... If you then take Nano DM vs Nano SH, or Modern DM vs Modern SH, I'd say the DM setting is more skillful than the SH setting in those cases, just because although the DM setting tests the same things as the SH eventually (cause, the way those are you're not going to win super-fast if your opponents are actually good... it'd be a nice long game), in the DM variant everything is a lot more intense and scaled up at the start, and it's conducive to strategies you can't see played in SH for a VERY long time, such as *proper* expansion with buildings, etc. Just a handful of non-massive mistakes can totally blow a Mod or Nano DM game, especially in the first 10-15 f11, whereas you make a handful of non-massive mistakes in the SH version, and you're really not going to loose because of it at all.
Image

Captain Nemo
Global Moderator
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:23 am
Lobby Username: >Heros<=Captain Nemo*

Re: Mid dm

Post by Captain Nemo »

Warrior_Kings Chase wrote:
taco wrote:no, really mid dm players are shit, there even worse when there trying to defending there sett, acting as if it takes alot of skill to play. hell i play mid sh and would still bag the shit out of midsh players who say that it requires more skill to play then any other sett.
well i play mid dm dm and i am not shit. i thought u love me taco lol. ik how to play all setts. ik i am not good at some of them but ik how to play and thats the thought that counts right? it doesnt matter if u need help or taining on a set or u ahve to be good at them. i still dont get why u think mid dm and mod dm is any diff. u play mod dm and i play mid dm. no matter how much we fight u will still say mod dm take more skills than mid dm and i will say mid dm takes more skill that mod dm. so u will never prove your guys point. no matter how many time u guys dog on mid dm.

i still dont get it. its DM. any sett can be easy wtih DM. come on u get alot of gold iron food wood and stone. how easy cna it get. mod dm it just like mid dm!!!! there is no differnce except the units and the age. so i dont get why u mod dmers have to talk so much smak on how mod dm takes so much dam skill.

well cya. nice talking to everyone lol :)
You obviusly HAVEN'T played alot of mod dm games. The level of intensity beats any other sett I tried (of course digi/nano dm would have somewhat the same). Yes of course it's easy to pump out a big army in no time, but your opponent is able to do the exact same thing, and how are you gonna look if you spend all your ress and the aspect of area damage suddenly makes the small army better than the big one? a mod dm game on a high level is constant war from about f11 2 till depending on the type of players very long games. That means you'll have to micro, macro (macro is rarely used in other setts which gives mod dm another dimension), boom, and expand to counter air all at the same time. So in matter of "Things to do" it will beat a sett like liga hands down (and of course mid dm also). Liga having other perspectives that mod dm doesn't have will even them out skillwise imo.

Anyway omega pretty much said it all if you care to read it.
bosshaft: "A warm pussy is so much better than a dick! Trust me."

User avatar
lightnessking.
Nemesis
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 pm

Re: Mid dm

Post by lightnessking. »

The fact is, mod dm requires more controlling skills than mid dm. No discussion possible at all.

And what do you concider the difference between micro & macro. Macro is some type of bot, in my opinion. Please tell me the difference between micro/macro ?
You cannot make another post so soon after your last.

User avatar
Omega
Administrator
Posts: 1807
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 pm
Lobby Username: [-Ts-] Ωmega
Location: Washington, DC / USA
Contact:

Re: Mid dm

Post by Omega »

lightnessking4you wrote:And what do you concider the difference between micro & macro. Macro is some type of bot, in my opinion. Please tell me the difference between micro/macro ?
Basically, I'd define micro as manual actions actions taken with regards to units on an individual unit level, or another very small level, and that must be taken in order to improve your overall effectiveness. Whereas I'd define macro as manual actions taken with regards to units on a group unit or other relatively large (compared to micro) unit level, and that are taken in order to improve your overall effectiveness; I'd also fold into macro actions that act on different units of the same type, telling them to do essentially the same thing, and doing so repeatedly.

The line between the two is pretty blurry, as it's not really a binary situation but one where you have a continuum, and although stuff at either end is easily identifiable, stuff at the middle isn't...
Image

Post Reply

Return to “EE: AoC Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests