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.