|
Post by blackflag on Feb 22, 2010 17:34:55 GMT -5
when you are asked who you think is the best TA player ever, just ask yourself: "who's my favorite 2v2 pard?" in the sense of a promised victory. a great 2v2 pard is always a good 1v1 player. i would feel most comfortable with the guaranteed win with pic as pard. 2nd pick would be iWIN. i would rather take a great 2v2 pard like snoop over gnug315 though i'll tell you that.
p.s. props go out to the great 1v1 players preen (super aggresive) and gnug315 (mega-builder). they are both legends of the game. preen hated 2v2 but played a couple times with me and i only played gnug315 2 or 3 times i think all on pd. 1st game he went core and lost in 20 mins. 2nd game he went arm and from what i can remember the game clock was over 2 hours and with the lag it was exhaustingly deep into 2 hours real time. huge game. i cant remember if we ever played any other maps though :/.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 23, 2010 9:24:00 GMT -5
I don't agree totally. Styles play a big role. You parded so well with pic because styles complimented so well I would say( you being very aggressive and him going for a sort of balanced building style). Aprox was top 3 player for a long time but we couldn't pard for shit. We would lose to 2 guys sometimes who wouldn't stand a chance 1v1 vs us in separate matches.
Snoop was my fav pard in a sense of guarenteed victory but other guys were better than him but again we complimented so well (him also doing a balanced building style of sorts)
|
|
neikan
Newbie Spammer
Posts: 8
|
Post by neikan on Feb 23, 2010 10:46:31 GMT -5
Cardmann
|
|
|
Post by TheLawnX on Feb 23, 2010 15:10:51 GMT -5
TNL_Genius becus we just played 2v2 constant and knew what we was gonna do er ELITE_KAHN was a good pard on mlagger.
You and Jag used to be a pretty solid team way back BF.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 23, 2010 15:21:14 GMT -5
Jag wasn't that good. They only really parded on gow as far as i remember and next to everyone else sucked there wasn't too hard
|
|
|
Post by retard0h on Feb 24, 2010 14:59:05 GMT -5
venom or emac for me. although a lot of people could make that list, they just stand out the most in my memory. had to be someone that could do better than most if given my resources or able to play 1v1 themselves, so i could fuck around and we wouldn't lose.
i think everyone that partnered with me hated the shit i did even though it was super funny.
|
|
|
Post by TAG_Venom on Feb 24, 2010 15:02:45 GMT -5
Best partners for me: ROCK, Dominator, Vapor, Sensation
|
|
|
Post by blackflag on Feb 24, 2010 16:27:59 GMT -5
Lawn: Jag was my first really l33t pard. we had great communication and we really didnt play gow all the time. we played all balanced maps... cf, pd, cc, gpp, jp. etc. infact at one time our favorite 2v2 map was jp not gow. rvd: the point i was making basically was you can be a good 1v1 player but not a good 2v2 player, but you cant so easily be a good 2v2 player and suck balls in 1v1. so 2v2 players have greater depth in skill imo. of course there is exceptions like people that play the same map all the time (gow whorez). and as far as jag goes well you came after his time. in his day he was top 5 AT LEAST he just didnt play for as many years as some of the legends because he lost interest in TA and it reflected in his games so some people might think he was overrated. at one time jag was the best in BTU_ hands down even me. jag beat me like 12 times i think it was in one day, more times than anyone ever so that has to count for something. Ven: sensation = most underrated player ever. on gow especially he could play pic, rock, me, natas, iwin, crip, saint, or anyone 1v1 and it was a 50/50 chance you could flip a coin he really was top level. on big land maps though he wasnt as good (i think it had something to do with connection too though he was kind of a lagger at times from what i remember). we didnt get along too well sometimes though cuz we both detest losing
|
|
|
Post by retard0h on Feb 24, 2010 17:09:05 GMT -5
sens is the shit and hes not underrated if you're not a prick like that
its always incredible how he says "no we got this m8" in a losing situation and 40mins later we win. and yeah i would just say fuck this lets comm bomb, but he loves to play and doesn't like restarting.
we would play like 10+ games a day and go back and forth or some days i would win all and then the next day he'd win them all. i have a lot of good tads of that. its like rock not playing TA for a while comes back plays a few games and still plays almost exactly the same at a top level, something i can't do. if im gone for a while i drag ass hardcore if i come back.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 24, 2010 20:24:34 GMT -5
rvd: the point i was making basically was you can be a good 1v1 player but not a good 2v2 player, but you cant so easily be a good 2v2 player and suck balls in 1v1. so 2v2 players have greater depth in skill imo. For me It's the total opposite. I don't think its possible to not be good at 2v2 if you're good at 1v1..cos if you're good at 1v1 you're good at TA. However, I do think its possible to be better at 2v2s vs ''the field'' than someone who owns you at 1v1. Every 1 of these players i can guarentee you will have a defensive style 1v1 and 2v2. But if you put that better player and the defensive guy on opposite teams with 2 IDENTICALLY SKILLED decent players (ie a guy who doesnt let the more aggressive guy completely down) in a 2v2 - then it's the opposite. The more skilled 1v1 player now has an edge again On the second part, you can definetely be ''good" at 2v2 and ''average'' at 1v1(TA). The reason for this is if you play solid and defensive you can't be overrun or outproduced anywhere near as easy in 2v2. Edges aren't as big cos theres less space..less mexes to fight for(if any)..less angles to attack from..the natural barrier of your partner..and just all around less options. Let's take GPP for an example. If you porc mts early at your outer mexes you can't be overrun and you can't be that far behind your opponent opposite you. Any decent guy can relatively hold their own doing this in a 2v2 with 3 experts, but.. said decent guy would get completely raped in a 1v1 vs any of said experts.
|
|
|
Post by retard0h on Feb 24, 2010 21:19:22 GMT -5
Venom + Vapor vs RVD + Pacer on GoW
technically andrew by your theory ven and i shoulda lost, because of the 4 i am the worst in 1v1, but we won.
you say if you're good at 1v1 you can't be anything but good at 2v2.
so Ven: good at 1v1, check RVD: good at 1v1, check Pacer: good at 1v1, check Vapor: okay at 1v1, check
good = 2, okay = 1 (since there is a higher value based on 1v1 ability)
Ven (2) + Vapor (1) vs RVD (2) + Pacer (2)
3 to 4
so whichever of you was matched to venom meant it was even and whoever was matched to me was uneven. so pretty much two 1v1 situations thereby i should have lost my 1v1 and the result is venom loses after and we lost the 2v2.
this is a very specific situation and instead of speaking vaguely im putting it factually.
or am i understanding you wrong...again?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 24, 2010 22:20:29 GMT -5
WHAT!??!!?! Which point of mine are you disputing here with this theoretical nonsense. As far as I can see the whole point is you parading that you and venom beat me and pacer in a game on gow (1 game on one of the most random 2v2 maps out there, and who's to say you won't lose 70 out of 100??)
lol @ your scores btw.. Me, pacer and venom all being equally skilled on ''2'', and in turn being double as good as you... lol @ at this being you putting it ''factually'. You think cos you make up some nonsense scoring system for player ratings (1 and 2) and give a 1 game sample, what you say is FACTS?. Think again son. I mean do you really see how much fucking BS what you're saying is? Just think about it..
Actually you basically just made 1 of my points for me. You having next to no chance 1v1 vs me there and still being on the winning 2v2 team when i had a solid pard ( I consider you a solid pard there as well btw)
|
|
|
Post by retard0h on Feb 24, 2010 22:44:29 GMT -5
yeah but i only disagreed with your first point, not the second. so way to go i guess.
and the scoring system isn't oh you're worth 2x me you fucking idiot, i wrote "higher value" as in since you beat me 1v1 you should have no problem with me in 2v2.
you wrot: "But if you put that better player and the defensive guy on opposite teams with 2 IDENTICALLY SKILLED decent players (ie a guy who doesnt let the more aggressive guy completely down) in a 2v2 - then it's the opposite. The more skilled 1v1 player now has an edge again"
key point: "The more skilled 1v1 player now has an edge again"
so what i was saying is since venom was an equal matchup vs either you or pacer, the imbalance was me being a weaker player in 1v1. since im weaker in 1v1 vs you or pacer i should be weaker in 2v2 in this situation.
that is your point is it not?
so what im trying to get at is, its about TEAMWORK, and that is what blackflag is getting at too i think.
dont be such a cunt you green midget nigger. open your eyes and your mind, not your asshole please. kthxbai!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Feb 24, 2010 23:20:23 GMT -5
Yes so in your example venom and pacer are the 2 identically skilled decent players (since they are both 2). But lets give them a 8 instead for what my point meant.
Now, lets put me as ''that better player'' and a 9.5, and tiptushi as ''the defensive guy'' and an 9. What im saying is tiptushi might have a better strike rate(edge) vs random guys in random teams 2v2s than me (playing with a group of 5's lets say) cos stylistically he plays pretty defensive so getting let down by a pard is less of a disaster than a hyper aggressive guy.
So now enter the 2v2s with me and him on opposite 2v2 teams (with venom and pacer as alternating pards). Now if im better at 1v1(TA), I am a favourite again (cos pard wont let me down)
That was my point. Teamwork is just auto as the skill level of the players in the game increases. Also, styles is the biggest factor in teamwork imo.
You picking an example of basically ME and YOU (and I'm a 2 and your'e a 1....when i was going for 2 pretty equal guys...1 being aggressive and 1 being defensive) was basically the opposite of my point and the example itself was total BS but that goes without saying.
|
|
|
Post by retard0h on Feb 25, 2010 0:00:23 GMT -5
nice job, you just reworded exactly what i said. so you contradict yourself.
and venom and pacer play very similar, but my theory still stands with proof. yours does not.
"this goes without saying" and you say it anyway...JENIUS
|
|