Yep.

IMP_ARTHAN wrote:

@Sammael:
Well, you may know better if you were around TAK all the time, however after hearing the most famous TAK strategies of the previous years and watching various TAK matches I can say the way modern TAkers play and behave is different than the way old Takers played and behaved.

What are you referring to? Mplayer t1 rush days because that's what the patch dictated? The games that I played when i showed up a year or so ago involved nothing I hadn't previously seen. Please describe the strategies you think older players used that don't work now, and what you use now. I'm curious.

@CarnageKing:

* In every RTS game, losing a single unit without a good reason means you lose the time and resources needed to be produced, plus the time you wasted controlling it; this is similar to every game, no matter if resources are infinite or not. Furthermore, resources take a lot of time to be depleted in every RTS with non-infinite resources (AOE, SC, WC, C&C, etc). However, I won't disagree that losing a unit/structure when resources are limited is more painful than losing a unit/structure when resources are infinite, but the same goes for your opponent since everyone plays with the same rules.

* TAK resource management is indeed easier than the rest RTSes. After all, it tries to be more 'strategical' than the rest of its kin and less 'economical'; you also agree here (correct me if I am wrong). However, it IS challenging, but with a way much different than the rest RTSes and yes, it is more 'point controll' and less 'resource gathering'. Actually, the only other RTS I know with similar resource system is Company of Heroes (COH).

* About TAK having less combat management, I believe it has more in comparison with AOE/AOM, but in comparison with SC/WC I am not 100% sure, so I may agree with you here.

* You also asked me about new tactics. Since when are you playing TA:Kingdoms? Have you played it since version 1 at Boneyards? If yes, the difference may be huge. However, if you have started from version 3, I don't think strategies have changed a lot.
Anyway, ghost making, off-screen, super wave, auto-launch, Thirsa tricks with lightning & waving are some of the high micro-managing tactics nowdays (some are considered cheating). Other changes include using Fire Mage over Ghost Ship & Weather Witch combo. Rocs are more often combined with Giant Orms, but Jungle Orcs are closesly the second most faved roc drop. Creonites are more used and I personally found a 3rd party Wall & Bomb Sprinker combo to delay my opponent until I tech-up enough. Another good trick is stopping a factory production slowly and gaining mana as the unit fades away (note that I haven't mastered all of those tricks yet).

I've played from mplayer thru IP thru gamespy. That is version 2? to version 3.1bb? No one played version 1, unless you count what i did LAN before i had the internet.

Ghost making? dont know what term means, need definition.

Off-screen: I assume you mean building, people def did this, i considered it abuse and did not. If you mean taking units off screen, people did this as well.

- once again, you have to describe super wave and auto-launch, i do not know your terminology, but I'm going to assume people did all of these things.

We also dropped orms and orcs and many other things. We often used Fire Mage, i've stated this already.

Creon was not heavily used because most people didnt buy the xpac. Still used it a few times, but never competitive because it wasnt allowed.

As tarosking said, I'm pretty sure we used the same general strategies and had the same knowledge. Unit stats (which if unchanged) dictate general strategy. I played this game thru the most recent official patch, I also played various 3rd party patches that never quite caught on. I believe you and many think we stopped playing during the tier 1 rush days of mplayer. I didn't even play that version that long, only a few months.

Hm there's so much stuff to cover, I'll answer to them later. But I'm a little disappointed by reading ck, thought he was at least decent. No wonder he loses to someone as bad as Double.

Sammael have you ever beaten me 1v1? (don't think you could ever possibly) You hardly made a 1/3 win average when I was teaming newbies and smurfs pissing about on purpose. Have you beaten Joker? or any 6t6 or any other that had some clue? I should just speak for myself since I don't vouch for their games, but you can't deny that they play a least a 100 times better than those novel writers.

Someone with the nickname Finny played last year. Sometime later I'd read that finny was paddy, which makes sense. Since he actually did half decent in some maps, which is something rare. Not enough to win even one though.

ck how about we play. Don't have to be right off, get your stuff ready, get used to it. You can pick all maps, but try to select something you do at least a bit decent on. If you win 1 in 10 I won't reply to your posts anymore. I'm sure you are young enough to be able to play. If I'm not mistaken I'm older than samael, joker and many others here. And you never stopped playing rts you say, I'm sure tak is a piece of cake.

But well you guys don't play, most of you are shit, always were. Probably the reason you quit. I'll explain later why the standards increased a lot. But it's nothing something obvious in an average's player point of view. I'll try to explain it in detail, dont worry.

You're kind of sad, tbh. And we played two 1v1's I believe. And I told you then what i'll tell you now, it's sad that you're a total cunt, cause you're actually pretty good at the game.

And good call bringing up 2v2's and 3v3's we played on grouped mana. trolololol.

haha idk... you are the one taking it seriously. I've started to play some tak for weeks since Spagg called me. You know I actually play tak. My game also backs me up. And it's not just me, many players surpassed those guys by FAR. I'm not satisfied when I see some "king" come and say he doesn't play tak anymore because it's not worth ,since it's easy and no1 has ever been better than him or some other guy. THat's not true, that's just another excuse cos he got owned and quit.

Also I play any map. I know how to play spread or grouped. Actually it doesn't matter that much, in fact you know how to play TAK or you don't.

Well sorry if you took it personal, I'm just defending that there ARE good players, there is competition in a way or another. Spagg for example is getting better, and many others are. I'm a cocky cunt but I play tak, I don't just write how I play tak.

Hi my friends

Smurfland. wrote:

haha idk... you are the one taking it seriously. I've started to play some tak for weeks since Spagg called me. You know I actually play tak. My game also backs me up. And it's not just me, many players surpassed those guys by FAR. I'm not satisfied when I see some "king" come and say he doesn't play tak anymore because it's not worth ,since it's easy and no1 has ever been better than him or some other guy. THat's not true, that's just another excuse cos he got owned and quit.

Also I play any map. I know how to play spread or grouped. Actually it doesn't matter that much, in fact you know how to play TAK or you don't.

Well sorry if you took it personal, I'm just defending that there ARE good players, there is competition in a way or another. Spagg for example is getting better, and many others are. I'm a cocky cunt but I play tak, I don't just write how I play tak.

The arguement was never about there not being good players now. I actually said, multiple times if not at least once, the average player now is far superior to the average player on GS or prior. Which makes sense, cause awful players aren't really going to continue to play an old game without ever getting better.

The arguement, and why I decided to give my input, was because you CAN give a list of who the best players to ever play the game were. Even if you want to preface it by saying "the best players on GameSpy that I remember were.." or whatever. But you can clearly list who the best players were, and it's obviously biased or at least subjective. Saying you can't is just being short sighted and.. I don't even know what other word I could use. Ignorant?

It's like saying you can't say that babe ruth was one of the greatest hitters of all time. There's numbers to back it up for one, but why isn't he? He destroyed the game when he played. Just because players today are typically faster, stronger, etc. doesn't change what he did when he played.

/soapbox.

PS. I won 2 KOTH tourneys, how many did you win landherr?

Smurfland. wrote:

Hm there's so much stuff to cover, I'll answer to them later. But I'm a little disappointed by reading ck, thought he was at least decent. No wonder he loses to someone as bad as Double.

For one, who the \"****\' is ck? Is that me? Who the \"****\' are you? If you played this game as long as you say, then I should know you, who are you? no one EVER calls me ck, makes me think you were a nobody-scrub when you played in my era.

2) I lost to double because I would lose to any and everybody when I came back to play. I played a total of ~4 games? After not touching this game once in close to a decade. LOL! You really trying to make me feel bad by saying I lost? I didnt even remember how to patrol my units, select units, select monarch, set hot keys etc etc etc. I was effectively a first timer enjoying myself by not focusing on trying to win, but just making units and seeing what they do for nastalgia sake.

3). You think I quit this game because i was getting bad and lost? No, i quit the game because I had been playing it for such an extremely long time at the highest level and it wasn't fun or even challenging anymore. The only person that posed a challenge to me on a day to day basis was paddy, and I switched games to WC3 to play with paddy. Even after switching to WC3 i still came back a few times and smurfed a tournament win and #1 on that garb ladder. I def did not start to get beat and decide to quit lol. I never came back and started to lose(besides the ~4 games i played on warzone), i just quit straight up for wc3 then wow then etc etc.

I'm not sure who stays on a single game for such a long time without the game paying money i.e. SC1. I don't revert back to old games seriously, they get old, I move on. Play them for nostalgia, that is all.

I currently do not play any RTS games, i quit SC2 a while ago. I actually dont play any game competitively anymore because I study. I am getting a PhD in Immunology. I sure as shit am not going to come to this old terrible quality of a game to practice for an epeen i dont care about. I occaisionally play dota 2 or gem td for fun, and thats it. I only play for amusement, as I study and work the vast majority of my time. This game offers me no amusement besides laughs at how old and shitty it is compared to what I can play now. I was laughing it up with immy about how unresponsive things are etc etc, crap resolution, and how ugly it is. Pure nastalgia that I'm over, and dont even have the itch to scratch, at least probably not for another decade.

Request denied. Seriously tho, you actually requested I come back to seriously play? lol.

Carnageking wrote:

Smurfland. wrote:

Hm there's so much stuff to cover, I'll answer to them later. But I'm a little disappointed by reading ck, thought he was at least decent. No wonder he loses to someone as bad as Double.

For one, who the \"****\' is ck? Is that me? Who the \"****\' are you? If you played this game as long as you say, then I should know you, who are you? no one EVER calls me ck, makes me think you were a nobody-scrub when you played in my era.

2) I lost to double because I would lose to any and everybody when I came back to play. I played a total of ~4 games? After not touching this game once in close to a decade. LOL! You really trying to make me feel bad by saying I lost? I didnt even remember how to patrol my units, select units, select monarch, set hot keys etc etc etc. I was effectively a first timer enjoying myself by not focusing on trying to win, but just making units and seeing what they do for nastalgia sake.

3). You think I quit this game because i was getting bad and lost? No, i quit the game because I had been playing it for such an extremely long time at the highest level and it wasn't fun or even challenging anymore. The only person that posed a challenge to me on a day to day basis was paddy, and I switched games to WC3 to play with paddy. Even after switching to WC3 i still came back a few times and smurfed a tournament win and #1 on that garb ladder. I def did not start to get beat and decide to quit lol. I never came back and started to lose(besides the ~4 games i played on warzone), i just quit straight up for wc3 then wow then etc etc.

I'm not sure who stays on a single game for such a long time without the game paying money i.e. SC1. I don't revert back to old games seriously, they get old, I move on. Play them for nostalgia, that is all.

I currently do not play any RTS games, i quit SC2 a while ago. I actually dont play any game competitively anymore because I study. I am getting a PhD in Immunology. I sure as shit am not going to come to this old terrible quality of a game to practice for an epeen i dont care about. I occaisionally play dota 2 or gem td for fun, and thats it. I only play for amusement, as I study and work the vast majority of my time. This game offers me no amusement besides laughs at how old and shitty it is compared to what I can play now. I was laughing it up with immy about how unresponsive things are etc etc, crap resolution, and how ugly it is. Pure nastalgia that I'm over, and dont even have the itch to scratch, at least probably not for another decade.

Request denied. Seriously tho, you actually requested I come back to seriously play? lol.

CarnageKing, if you meant even half of what you've just written, then you're the troll here and not Landherr-Smurfland. I suppose you've written these because of anger and you didn't meant them.
In case you're serious about you've just written then mention the name of a single serious/experienced RTS player who judge an RTS by its graphics! OMG! Coming back to make fun of pixelised TA:K's graphics, what kind of RTS player are you? Even if a hypothetical RTS is played only in 320x240 resolution and it is black & white, you will judge it based on gameplay and not its graphics. Furthermore, TA:Kingdoms graphics are not that bad as many people try to make them look, even for today's standards. Another thing it is not true is the level of challenge. If you have quitted TA:K for a very long time and come back now, then it is challenging because you have forgotten how to play it while your opponents are all experienced (something you already have mentioned). Finally, nostalgia is a positive feeling, you don't feel nostalgia for TAK if you think it is shitty, you fell nostalgia for TAK if you think it is awesome. Play Starcraft2 and other modern RTSes, I have played a lot of these brand-new-awesome-graphics games made by rich companies and seriously, if I take their budget and experience into account, they make poor quality games; the can make their games much better, but they don't care since they have a famous name and everyone is going to rush and buy it...

I was writing some of that in anger, choice of words could have been less harsh.

In all seriousness though, TAK graphics and lack of control (compared to games now) are a major turn off. Lack of resolution support, inherent lag, and lack of control make this game hard to go back to.

RTS success is normally judged off of perfect balance, and that is why SC1 is, has been, and probably always will be king. TAK balance just isn't very good, probably because of the develoepr quiting on the game so early. While uneven maps are unique and a change of pace, they truly are not balanced.

I truly enjoyed TA:K when I used to play every day, however when I briefly came back for a couple of games, I did not enjoy the actual game besides the nostalgia it provided. For this reason, I have no interest in playing TA:K seriously, or even at all.

Enough of me explaining why I do not want to play this game, not sure why I'm doing that anyways.

***Back to how the game has changed***

Im honestly curious what has changed in gameplay.

Carnageking wrote:

I was writing some of that in anger, choice of words could have been less harsh.
In all seriousness though, TAK graphics and lack of control (compared to games now) are a major turn off. Lack of resolution support, inherent lag, and lack of control make this game hard to go back to.

Just to mention a few more things:
1)
TA:K's balance is pretty good if you consider that Cavedog had to balance 5 completely different races with completely different focus (infantry, navy, air etc.). I actually haven't seen someone managing better balance with so many different races and if Cavedog lived longer, then balancing issues could be over.
2)
The best way to see the changes (if any) is to play seriously again, but this is something you're not interested in doing...
3)
I experience lagging in every online game I play. I think it has to do with connection and not with the game itself. For example, I play AOM via GameRanger and we usually lag a lot. XD

IMP_ARTHAN wrote:

Just to mention a few more things:
1)
TA:K's balance is pretty good if you consider that Cavedog had to balance 5 completely different races with completely different focus (infantry, navy, air etc.). I actually haven't seen someone managing better balance with so many different races and if Cavedog lived longer, then balancing issues could be over.
2)
The best way to see the changes (if any) is to play seriously again, but this is something you're not interested in doing...
3)
I experience lagging in every online game I play. I think it has to do with connection and not with the game itself. For example, I play AOM via GameRanger and we usually lag a lot. XD

2) i dont want to play i just would like to know how the game has evolved since people here claim it has.

3) Every game lags a little, but in all games now if the lag starts, the game pauses, it doesnt have units warping all over the goddam place and living for 1000X years.

Lord Frango wrote:

Hi my friends

Hi you too. Sorry for the improper and late welcoming, we were too busy in our little flame war here. Anyway, welcome to the community and have fun! Long live TAK!

Lol, the guy can't even change his resolution? Man you are worse than I thought lol. Do you think I'm calling you Carnageking (long and boring) everytime I mention you? It's just a stupid internet nickname I call it whatever I want, as people call me landherr, Landherr, landher, land, lander, lande, lan, la, l, _, lol (now a new one, Lanherr, thanks A-train for the contribution)

ck let me put it simple for you. Tak doesn't lag. You play like horseshit, always did. You don't lose TAK, if you do, you never had it. I don't play seriously, you don't put effort when you know what you are doing. I like smile all the time, I play for fun. I'm just on another level, you are just the king of the turds. Actually not a king, since you admit yourself that you were never even close to paddy.

Btw funny what I've been reading... double once mentioned that "the best players learned their lesson about humility". At the time I thought, wow, that's a good lesson. But the last thing this guy here is is humble.

I've wrote maybe 10 times when did I play TAK before. If you beg enough I repeat it. I'm just tired of writing huge texts, I'm going to play a game now. By the way sammael, I think you can't say I'm the one who comes to a game forum to prove myself the most.

ok troll cya. When I'm bored enough I come here and teach you a thing or two. Have fun.

ps: people dont make tourneys when I'm around, the result is too predictable. Samael anyone could win stuff that time as few people knew what they were doing. Today you aren't be the best if you don't use your head. Or what's left of your head lol

Was any of that even english? This kid is pathetic, answer my question or stop ranting. You've added nothing useful to this thread in your last few posts.

K nublet you can't even understand that much. Ah and you write too much, not sure what is the question.

But ok let me summarize all this discussions.

ck sucked. End of story.

the only question you were ever asked. what has changed?

Hm before that one, how old are you? I was asked a lot of stuff... but ok I'll teach you somethings soon, don't worry. Wrote too much tonight, cya.

But one reason is because games don't lag today as much as before. It's easier to learn, easier to play bigger or different maps...

Hey old pal Carn. I will tell you what has changed from my last adventures with this game about a year ago. Many tactics have evolved and mon fighting as well. There is a new glitch that many exploit. I learned that that glitch is what they call "shadowing." It's where you use your mon or any builder unit to build an object very briefly. Next thing you know the mon runs away from the spot and the unit's manufacturing remains seconds longer than the mon was there. It became very much used in this modern TAK day. I never adjusted to it and because I get upset easy, I decided to quit gaming again. You'd also have to see how many tactics grew stronger over the years. I'm gonna try to get X to play again to show him (who I believe was one of the most elite aramon users of all time) that his old aramon strats wouldn't be as effective. I know I was rusty (at least not on some maps) but I'd like to play again soon. Lanherr.. dont' worry about Carn.. he's an old timer and just hasn't gotten adjusted to all the so called "newcommer's" to us old timers. So I can see some resentment easily built. And Carn happens to be one of the greatest old timers that had played this game. I strongly beleive as I'm gonna try and bring X back with me that any truly great player who has the desire to be.. will adapt to the new times in the game which they go back to.

A-train you stopped playing tak because of shadows? lol. I think any human can get good at any game, but just a small percent ever get to be the best. Just a small percent ever manage to learn, or have as much skills as the top players of the current "era" (lol).

Here are some comments on carn's excuses, read if you want (clicking in the word 'Spoiler'):

Spoiler:

Landherr.. don't you think you should welcome older players back as well as new ones instead of cause trouble? Everyone is entitled their reasons not excuses for not playing anymore. I understand that it would make the game a whole heck of a lot more fun for all if more played like the so called good 'ole days when there was at least 50 on at a time. I for one first stopped playing about a month after my beloved clan broke up. It just wasn't the same. Than years later I decided to give it a try again. Yes, many "new" things discouraged me as well as the lack of being able to find a game easily. I was logging on to play at least 3 times a day.. and rarely found a game. But nonetheless, I would like to possibly play again. Do I have your permission Landherr? Or are you going to fight off everyone who is interested in this game still?

I'm not sure how much my opinion counts nowadays, but I can vouch for Carny and how good he was.

Dude are you really reading my posts? everytime I defend TAK and why it's a great game. Then I see someone saying it's crap, don't worry man I will answer definitely. A-train if you really wanted to play you'd just make a room of TAK, at the most invite people here.

And I have been there in GSA when there was always at least 20 people online, often getting to 40-50. What do you expect today? To log in and find 7 people in a room waiting for you? It might happen in weekends, but don't be silly...

Oh and welcome great A-train!! Please let us have the honor of your divine presence!