Why...

I've always been stuck playing grouped mana, and it bores me. Big maps have much more strategy involved. Grouped is the same strategy every time. A random group of assassins aren't going to make a dent in grouped, but in spread you can really beat someone up with them.

In grouped, cannoneers are insanely powerful. In spread, you have to be careful where you put them.

It's like Checkers and Chess. Grouped is Checkers, Spread is Chess. One is infinitely simple and anyone can pick it up and play. There are very effective strategies, but there are not many. Chess takes longer to learn, and has millions of strategies because all the pieces are valuable.

I simply do not see the draw for grouped mana games. I play Chess, not Checkers.

Ok ladies, listen now to the greatest voice of Wisdom and Skill you could ever find in TA:K. I wouldn't have to say this and sound cocky, but you guys keep talking shit in old topics. I have to answer.

TA:K definitely isn't supposed to be played in the manner you guys say as well. Veruna vs Veruna, Aramon vs Veruna in a Tarosian territory (sewers) makes absolutely no sense. So, considering people just play skirmish battles, considering TA:K was never played for money, it is completely natural that people would start playing their own maps online. It was easier to download, connections got better, Mlagger was gone, and everytime less people lagged absurdly always preventing this game from having been played in a level it would be played later. You can't compared players that are used to a 640x480 resolution and lack of smoothness (due to lag and shit pcs) with much more experienced players from other times.

Anyways, for whatever reason it is, cd/dc is just good for 1v1s and 2v2s. As 3v3s started to get popular, people would start playing in more balanced maps for more players. Yea 1v1 and 2v2 will almost always be balanced in most cd/dc maps, but in 3v3s 4v4s it is too much random and someone always get stuck between 2 players to ruin the game, for example.

Yea I'll agree that it is not the only reason. The lack of well made 3rd party maps in a cavedoggy style isn't only because of lag and unbalance. It's also because that faggot lazy \"***\" most of the times won't waste time and and he will just make half-assed maps, single tiled with some number of close manas for each player. If you see old maps most of them don't have 4-6 manas perfectly lined, they are random spread in a small area. It was easier, lined manas only became popular as people got more experienced in that style of maps.

So, "why do people insist on playing "grouped" mana"? Maps are generally more symmetric and balanced, it is easier to predict the start positions, it is easier to get started. A newbie won't lose his Thirsha in 3min like he generally would in other maps. As much as "grouped" mana "takes a large portion of what makes this game so special out of the equation" it also adds a lot of stuff you wouldn't see in "spread" mana.

That's pretty much why people insist on playing "grouped" mana.

Blackraven, Sammael, Double, Saltfield. I know there was always someone who would own you guys in any map (Joker may sound confusing in english, but he would generally own you guys in any map, even Savage). Don't rly have to be against "one of five people", or me, I'm pretty sure there are many guys here that wouldn't mind giving you guys (and ck anytime he wished) as much beatings as you wanted in any map.

So ok, let's ignore 1v1s. Most of you guys will also avoid 2v2s if you're not on the level of the other three players. So you started wondering, why I dont get 3v3/4v4 games in the style of maps I'm less clueless at ("spread")? Well I answered to that already. Because let's get real, the map doesn't matter as long as you're confident at it. It is more fun to play what you're better at. That answers all.

Saltfield, I'll play you "spread" as much as you wish. Though you didn't get in a 1v1 yet with me (and I bet not with other good players) so far with that nickname. "Grouped" isn't the same strat everytime. I don't think big maps have much more strategy involved. I don't think a random group of assassins will ever beat anyone in any map. In any map you have to be careful where you put your cannoneers. It's not like Checkers or Chess. It's like TA:K. Every map is different, every game is different. Try playing Checkers with me in "grouped" and you'll continue never winning. Well you'll still lose playing Chess in "spread", because TA:K isn't about style of maps. All maps can be easy to get started at, all maps can have millions of strats and all pieces can be valuable. I think there is countless strats at any map and the hardest thing to learn is TAK.

TAK has always been less about planning and more about execution. CK says he "had the exact mana locations and sizes memorized for so many maps" and "had the exact mana and timings worked out for so many maps". That's possible the most idiotic thing I've ever read from a decent player. No wonder many of tops would say people were shit back then. If you concentrate at BOs and stuff like that you will never learn TAK. Because TAK was never rly played to the limit, not back then and not now. So you can't pretend you have ever calculated "timings" precisely in TA:K because 1-you didn't you sucked 2-it's stupid. It's stupid because TAK maps are quite simple to remember, 30s in the 60s it takes to make the first Barrack will be enough to remember the map. The other 30s are more than enough to predict more or less what you're gonna do. That's why TAK is about EXECUTION, skill, micro. That's why it doesn't matter what map and what style of maps you are playing. If you play against someone who trully knows what he's doing, you will get owned anywhere. That's why the highest level of play in any map (including "spread")is seen today. I can't rly say "spread" or any map has been played in a "high level" back then, because it wasn't if you compare to today. Why? Because people who never had the taste of victory in TA:K don't rly stick around anymore. Thay's why CK (or whoever that is using that account in this forum) still browse up 3yr old topics and post shit to prove himself like anyone gives a \"****\".

That's right. "TAK never progressed beyond the grouped vs spread debate"? In fact TAK never rly got to that debate. Things just changed naturally without much contemplation. And the ultimate main goal has always been to win. And will always be.

CK you can't rly take in consideration what Arthan says as an example of high level play. Sorry Arthan, if theorical experience was all that mattered then CK would be a decent player, but he isn't. Anyone can talk his \"***\" out in some forums to sound like hes ok. You have to play and back up what you say. Any1 can play AGE, speak some ideas about RTS play without ever playing TAK like the other tops.

That's why the punks that talk about koreans or SC2 or whatever are generally shit players who never owned at TAK and need excuses here. Just because koreans own at SC doesn't mean they own at TAK, they tried and never did, and could never in a few yrs. They being good at SC doesn't mean you will win at TAK. You'll lose at both, and I'll win at TAK.

Well I'll stop elaborating about this topic here, because the simple discussion about "spread"x"grouped" is retarded, and you would know that if you ever play TAK at this level. I can also elaborate about those 10 points if you wish to learn more about TAK.

"after reading a few posts I contemplated downloading this thing and playing a couple of games for fun,but no point if people dont play." Well I don't see what stops someone from installing a 300MB game and playing when he wants. And if you're someone who can't afford to play a game then no need to uninstall it pal, you can just not play. So don't tell me you've "moved on", because that makes no sense when you're here browsing old topics in a tak forum and answering to them. And I'm pretty sure many others would and have owned you guys at "spread", of the people who have posted in this topic take OMW, he would beat any of you guys anytime you wished.

As most of what's written in this topic is incoherent, there are lots I can still speak about here, If you want just say so. You might not like me because I beat you at TAK, but at least you can take this and my other posts as informative, as I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about in TAK compared to ck and the like.

I can't help if you get butthurt here, but we can always decide everything in a TAK game. HF.

With love,
landh-jerk.

^^ not even worth reading. Looks like a rant sprinkled with "I'm going to try to be an asshole"flavor.

KingDouble-DB wrote:

^^ not even worth reading. Looks like a rant sprinkled with "I'm going to try to be an asshole"flavor.

i thought the same when you 2 brought this up, to play "i wanna be good at tak" lolzgg

Maybe if your opinion wasn't laced with egotistical bullshit then I would bother to read it.

And my dick is bigger than yours.

I'll respond to the parts actually relevant to this discussion in an attempt to force you into a debate about the actual topic and not whatever random crap you decide to spew in every thread you post in, always ending in "im the best out of 10 total players."

player1 wrote:

TA:K definitely isn't supposed to be played in the manner you guys say as well. Veruna vs Veruna, Aramon vs Veruna in a Tarosian territory (sewers) makes absolutely no sense. So, considering people just play skirmish battles, considering TA:K was never played for money, it is completely natural that people would start playing their own maps online.

TA:K was meant to be played aramon vs veruna on sewers online because it was designed that way, IE BY. This isn't the campaign we are discussing. So this point is just retarded.

Yes. people will make their own maps, correct.

Quote :

Anyways, for whatever reason it is, cd/dc is just good for 1v1s and 2v2s. As 3v3s started to get popular, people would start playing in more balanced maps for more players. Yea 1v1 and 2v2 will almost always be balanced in most cd/dc maps, but in 3v3s 4v4s it is too much random and someone always get stuck between 2 players to ruin the game, for example.

Yes starting locations can completely screw up 3v3+ battles in cd/dc, but same can be said for 3rd party without the start locations being linked for teams. Although difficult, remember in cd/dc 3v3 if 1 person is stuck there is the possibility for your team to help--- balanced? not at all, but still a fun part of the game cavedog left in.

Quote :

If you see old maps most of them don't have 4-6 manas perfectly lined, they are random spread in a small area. It was easier, lined manas only became popular as people got more experienced in that style of maps.

That isn't even true. Take it from someone that played in mplayer unlike yourself... straight line manas were popular very early on. They generally had more than 4-6 mana per player because people wanted to spam knights with ease, but there were a few with less. The straight line symmetry has been around much longer than skill on said maps. However the shift to almost exclusive 6 mana grouped instead of 12 mana grouped happened during GS. That is correct.

Quote :

So, "why do people insist on playing "grouped" mana"? Maps are generally more symmetric and balanced, it is easier to predict the start positions, it is easier to get started. A newbie won't lose his Thirsha in 3min like he generally would in other maps. As much as "grouped" mana "takes a large portion of what makes this game so special out of the equation" it also adds a lot of stuff you wouldn't see in "spread" mana.

Nothing to argue with here, you speak of preference. My only argument is that the strategies/unit comps you will most likely see on grouped, narrow choke point head to head maps will consist of units that are not balanced for that task. The extreme power of a treb/gate for example is seen on these maps where the trebs are 100 fold easier to protect than on a spread map.

Additionally, playing the grouped 1 choke maps completely removes an aspect of TAK from the game--- mana management, protection, collection, expansion. I fail to realize any aspect of TAK that is removed from gameplay when you choose to play spread, therefore grouped is dumbed down is a logical conclusion to reach.

Quote :

TAK has always been less about planning and more about execution. CK says he "had the exact mana locations and sizes memorized for so many maps" and "had the exact mana and timings worked out for so many maps". That's possible the most idiotic thing I've ever read from a decent player. No wonder many of tops would say people were shit back then. If you concentrate at BOs and stuff like that you will never learn TAK. Because TAK was never rly played to the limit, not back then and not now. So you can't pretend you have ever calculated "timings" precisely in TA:K because 1-you didn't you sucked 2-it's stupid. It's stupid because TAK maps are quite simple to remember, 30s in the 60s it takes to make the first Barrack will be enough to remember the map. The other 30s are more than enough to predict more or less what you're gonna do. That's why TAK is about EXECUTION, skill, micro. That's why it doesn't matter what map and what style of maps you are playing. If you play against someone who trully knows what he's doing, you will get owned anywhere.

This doesn't really make any sense. TAK has multiple facets of game play: build order, strategy, macro, micro, execution. Instinct is not a facet of gameplay, it is part of execution. Are you seriously trying to argue that if all things equal, having a better build order is irrelevant? All things equal having a better set strategy is irrelevant?

Will you agree that different sized manas give different amounts of mana? Will you agree that if I receive my mana more quickly, I can build things more quickly? That is build order and strategy. There are general build orders and strategies that will work very well on a variety of maps. Then there are build orders and strategies that you can practice and perfect that will work even better. If everything else stays the same, and you develop a build order and strategy are you seriously saying that you will not be better than before you've done such?

Are you seriously trying to say that if you've developed a build order and strategy that keeps your mana extremely low without graying, and you have a fallback plan for the loss of each builder, you have most effective unit attack routes and timings set up to know exactly where to send things--- that this will not provide you any advantage over a person that you share equal execution with?

I'll give an analogy to help you understand things better... Take basketball. This is a game that highly revolves around individual skill and instinct. However, the teams that have the most skilled players with extremely good instict and execution almost always lose to the teams with less skill but developed strategy. IE san antonio spurs vs whoever, Dallas Mavericks beating lebron, wade, bosh Heat. It's a stupid analogy comparing a real life sport to a video game, but perfecting one area without sacraficing other areas cannot make you worse, it can only make you better.

Quote :

That's right. "TAK never progressed beyond the grouped vs spread debate"? In fact TAK never rly got to that debate. Things just changed naturally without much contemplation. And the ultimate main goal has always been to win. And will always be.

Things did not change naturally without any contemplation. Are you trying to give a history lesson of TAK from before you started playing TAK? There was always debate from mplayer where the grouped mana stuff started (as BY had official maps that you were required to play). Ultimate goals in TAK are player specific. Some play to win, some play just for fun. Goals often change over the course of playing as well. I started out playing for fun, realized I could learn very quickly, then played to win. After I had won more tournaments than anyone else at the time, i stopped playing the game. The very few games I played were strictly for fun because I had moved onto other games. All of this is pretty well documented on forums.

Quote :

That's why the punks that talk about koreans or SC2 or whatever are generally shit players who never owned at TAK and need excuses here. Just because koreans own at SC doesn't mean they own at TAK, they tried and never did, and could never in a few yrs. They being good at SC doesn't mean you will win at TAK. You'll lose at both, and I'll win at TAK.

Koreans as a race playing TAK is irrelevant. They do not dominate games because they are korean. They dominate games because korean professional gamers can easily make a salary over $100,000, with winnings putting them near $1M USD. Other countries do not monetarily support games like this, so if there is money to be made playing the game, it is almost always dominated by koreans.

Ok, everything else is not relevant to the topic. Some of the stuff I responded to isn't really all that relevant either but it is debatable.

You can respond to my above points, or my previous post directly quote for quote and you will be on topic and engaged in a real debate.

I'll make a proper debater out of you by the end of the month landherr.

With love,

CK

Well it's not easy to debate with some guy who's discussing with multiple accounts in this topic/forum.

You didn't respond to parts actually relevant to the topic, take your last quote mentioning koreans. You're just responding to stuff out of context whenever it seems convenient.

And for someone who believes to know this game so well, I don't know what stops you from playing one game instead of writing huge posts about stuff no one cares about. Is it because "people don't play"? Then I wonder who the \"****\' would ever even start playing TAK. Who would play TAK over other games if you consider a game "people play". The answer is simple, you suck at TAK.

But ok first I'd like to see you prove that "I had won more tournaments than anyone else at the time". The only record I've seen is a GSA record displaying a few TAK small tourneys and everytime there was 2 or 4 winners. Who even calls that a tourney? And the ck nick is only seen there one or two times (in a 2v2 tourney too come on, even Miojo won a tourney there). Then you say you "smurfed" lots and won lots. ROFL that's even worse. First anyone can say he has smurfed and won. Second it's complete bs to play as a smurf against 4 people you know. You cant even call that a tourney. And even if you call it a tourney then fine. I'm still a hundred times ahead of the elementar retarded level of play you believe to be good. That pretty much means I have more skill.

Besides, you admit paddy always owned you. And other than that I always see people mentioning other players instead of ck as closer to paddy. And considering when I saw paddy play, it's rather disappointing to see you're even worse than that.

Seriously there's so much wrong in your post(s) ck I won't dissect them right now. I'd rather play a game instead of doing this bs, but you'll have your debate and hopefully I'll make you a decent TAK player out of the pile of garbage you are now by the end of the month ck.

With love,

#1 of all time

My dick is still bigger than yours.

player1 wrote:

Well it's not easy to debate with some guy who's discussing with multiple accounts in this topic/forum.

You didn't respond to parts actually relevant to the topic, take your last quote mentioning koreans. You're just responding to stuff out of context whenever it seems convenient.

Yeah, I said i responded to some stuff that wasn't particularly relevant but it was at least debatable and not pure 'I'm better than you' flaming.

Quote :

But ok first I'd like to see you prove that "I had won more tournaments than anyone else at the time". The only record I've seen is a GSA record displaying a few TAK small tourneys and everytime there was 2 or 4 winners. Who even calls that a tourney?

Sadly it is hard to find many records of the tournaments that were held on mplayer and GSA. After winning my first KOTH on mplayer I proceeded to win virtually every single tournament afterwards. Paddy beat me in a single winner KOTH on mplayer and beat me in a single winner KOTH in GSA. Like I said, records of these things are not around, but I kept track because they were available at the time I played. And at that time I had won more--- more than paddy because I played in more. It's not really something worth arguing that I won them or didn't win them. You can ask people that played when I played competitively--- ie you can't ask someone that played on GSA when someone was using my name after I stopped playing. So you can ask tarosking, double, or atrain, they should recall that I won many tournaments, they may not know that I won the most at that time because they would have had to calculate it. I should add the caveat that my tournament wins were from the years that I played, because there was not a record of BY tournament wins to follow---it's possible paddy had won more, but he never corrected me on my statment of having won the most.

All of this is irrelevant though, it's just a dick measuring contest--- I only responded because you didnt write anything else that I can respond to in your reply.

You can only measure yourself against the era in which you play. It is this way for all video games and all sporting competitions. I am sadly proud that the time I wasted playing video games came with some sort of reassuring dick growth. I can say that at the time I played whichever game I played , I was successful at being top 5 in each.

This thread has now been derailed long enough, let's get back on topic.

Please respond to one of the reasons of how grouped is superior/inferior to spread or balanced better/worse or come up with some of your own... or just say it is preference and it is where the game is now. The goal here is to get you to address any of the points relevant to the actual debate here and I'll be happy.

Player arguing again Double get your cock outtttt X

da-mn again i need to spent half hour to read all, and quote, and write something sense

so, you have different opinions

btw imo the best can be something as hybrid maps, grouped/spread maps
(grouped attribute) in every place gonna be some more manas than one,
(grouped attribute )there gonna be less places with mana
(spread attribute) have more places with manas than typicall grouped map

example
"base mana" type maps with some 4-15 "base" for 1v1/2v2 map, but i probably say it because i played too much starcraft and i try to make Ta:K morphy into =>StarCraft )
(btw 3v3/4v4 imo can't be balance its too much players, in every RTS very serious games are only 1v1 and 2v2, 3v3/4v4 are only entertainment (btw ta:k is only entertainment ) ) )

Btw
blood hunters is something as grouped/spread hybrid map its popular, and have succes the biggest drawback is lack of balance (poor power with zhon and creon, too strong veruna, good aramon/taros)
(probably its just have too many manas(960) and/or its too small (7x7))

Edit
Manolo right, i gonna never fully read this whole topic xD

Edit 2
something high mana cd/dc map such as angvir maze have 920 mana and its 10x10 + have many berms (berms map can be "consider as bigger" than flat one maps)
sewers of elam (8x8 no much berms/obstacles/water) have 685 mana (but anyway sewers is still verunian map)

Edit 3
anyway its really hard to make really good map for every race(there are 5th race with other strenght and weakness), and if that map gonna fit for 1v1 and 2v2 in one time its gonna be hilarious (the best as now (my imo) is blood hunters/sewers/?angvir?/vhd plazas(ok this is only 2v2) (with amount of maps which i know))

MalinOMW wrote:

da-mn again i need to spent half hour to read all, and quote, and write something sense

so, you have different opinions

btw imo the best can be something as hybrid maps, grouped/spread maps
(grouped attribute) in every place gonna be some more manas than one,
(grouped attribute )there gonna be less places with mana
(spread attribute) have more places with manas than typicall grouped map

example
"base mana" type maps with some 4-15 "base" for 1v1/2v2 map, but i probably say it because i played too much starcraft and i try to make Ta:K morphy into =>StarCraft )
(btw 3v3/4v4 imo can't be balance its too much players, in every RTS very serious games are only 1v1 and 2v2, 3v3/4v4 are only entertainment (btw ta:k is only entertainment ) ) )

Btw
blood hunters is something as grouped/spread hybrid map its popular, and have succes the biggest drawback is lack of balance (poor power with zhon and creon, too strong veruna, good aramon/taros)
(probably its just have too many manas(960) and/or its too small (7x7))

Edit
Manolo right, i gonna never fully read this whole topic xD

Fitting that hunters is a starcraft --> TAK map.

yea in SC there is very similar(depends on look xD) map, its also popular
its call The hunters, or second version The big game hunters

btw who made blood hunters?

Edit 1
i had make python map on september but still need to fix some small issues (and i even forgot about that map), maybe in some next 2 weeks i gonna public it (its 1v1 or 2v2 map based on starcraft map with same name)

Can't believe I wasted time reading Landherr posts again.


When will I learn.

Everyone just stop playing, stop posting, Landherr is the greatest. After all that's what every topic turns into anyway.


Moving on.

MalinOMW wrote:

yea in SC there is very similar(depends on look xD) map, its also popular
its call The hunters, or second version The big game hunters

btw who made blood hunters?

Edit 1
i had make python map on september but still need to fix some small issues (and i even forgot about that map), maybe in some next 2 weeks i gonna public it (its 1v1 or 2v2 map based on starcraft map with same name)

!!!$$$$Big Game Hunters$$$$!!! Existed as a TAK map for a very long time, i have no idea who made it. It had about twice as much mana per base as bloods.

Bloodknight-RX converted the map into Blood hunters and a 1v1 version.

Rachy wrote:

Player arguing again

Lol I love my fans. People don't even see smurfs/ck and the scrubs, all they see is me arguing.

Well I've some sort of pride and it's hard to stay quiet when 90%+ of what he writes is horse crap, not a good example for the people here who still have capacity of ever becoming good at TAK, unlike ck, etc.

Sammael wrote:

Can't believe I wasted time reading Landherr posts again.

What's more stupid, waste time reading something you aren't interested, or waste time replying to say you wasted time reading something you aren't interested. Either way, that's pretty dumb m8. Same for Manolo. But don't worry, posts from me are homework to any tak player. And that's one difference between me and ck, anyone who has a clue about tak realizes that.

Quote :

Everyone just stop playing, stop posting, Landherr is the greatest. After all that's what every topic turns into anyway.

Not rly, but that's the only thing you pay attention to and care about. WHat a wanna be
And yea you "dont play" then everyone should stop playing because everything revolves around Sammael.


And for what I have seen in the past weeks TAK needs the flames, otherwise most of what we'd get is smurfs resurrecting topics and their excuses for why the always sucked at TAK.

OMW wrote:

btw 3v3/4v4 imo can't be balance its too much players, in every RTS very serious games are only 1v1 and 2v2, 3v3/4v4 are only entertainment (btw ta:k is only entertainment ) ) )

Tak has always been only entertainment, that's what people always keep trying to convince themselves. And always when they're tired of losing. Just one tip pal, fun and winning is proportional. In any game / serious game. TAK never had money but yea, you still care lots.

coonking wrote:

Yeah, I said i responded to some stuff that wasn't particularly relevant but it was at least debatable and not pure 'I'm better than you' flaming.

=/, there is no "im better than you" flame, I couldn't possibly ever lose a game against someone as bad as you if I'm trying 5%. So it's a little unmotivating to debate when everything becomes a one-sided lecture, and in the end all I get is shit players learning from me and talking crap.



gg. keep them coming newbs, TAK lessons coming soon (cba right now).

player1 wrote:

Same for Manolo.

Don't include me in this discussion. u.u'
I just did a comment. xD'

player1 wrote:

Rachy wrote:

Player arguing again

Well I've some sort of pride and it's hard to stay quiet when 90%+ of what he writes is horse crap, not a good example for the people here who still have capacity of ever becoming good at TAK

Please elaborate...

Sure but it will be a huge post because I'd have to quote since your first post in this topic.

Carnageking wrote:

Please respond to one of the reasons of how grouped is superior/inferior to spread or balanced better/worse or come up with some of your own... or just say it is preference and it is where the game is now.

I'll start with this one. I already answered to that and gave my opinion/answer to this topic. As for preference, it has always been preference. I will agree though that symmetric 1v1 and 2v2 cd/dc maps should be neutral choice if the players can't agree on a map (bloods as the most popular 3rd party map might be a neutral choice too idk). I think though that most 3rd party maps are more symmetric so they are generally more balanced especially for more players, but for me it doesn't matter, it doesn't make them better or worse, just different. Just like "spread" or "grouped". Just different.


The rest of your points I'll have to quote one by one and I will do it later because there's a lot I disagree with, will try to be impartial to the fact that you cant play this game as well as many others could. When I do that you'll probably also get answers about the differences of "grouped" and "spread".

I, personally prefer spread mana maps (CD/DC) over 3rd party maps. I really don't have the mind-power (at the moment) to back up what I believe, so I'll try to avoid detailing this debate.

Anyone who's known me for at least a while would be able to tell anyone that I am a spread mana map player. Same for most old players. CD/DC is old school. There was this discussion many times over the years, and yes the most skilled players in this game almost always chose CD/DC as thier favorite choice maps. However, like Carn said, even they loved many 3rd party maps, myself likewise.

guys guys lets just agree to dissagree listen we all have our fav map types no matter if your old school or new school its about haven fun what matters

Old school or new school. That's just an attempt to stereotype things. Everyone must've played cd/dc at one point and most will keep playing it, it's not necessarily old school. There are old players who only play 3rd party maps, there are people you believe to be "new school" that were playing cd/dc a decade ago.

But yes, preference is what matters. TAK has always been about having fun. Preference is related to confidence, confidence is related to the wish to win. So the best you can say is "I don't feel like I can more or less control the game and win right now, or it will require too much energy or even energy/ability I don't have right now. So I'll just play (for fun)." When you feel like you can win then I don't see what changes if there is no money involved, you're still playing for fun.

Well I won't elaborate anymore on grouped/spread specificly what's supposed to be the thread, I'll just reply to ck posts later, just to make it even more obvious that the level in any map (spread/grouped/whatever) is higher today than anytime before. Wouldn't have to say this but he kept being delusional when he resurrected this old topic. Not sure what you were expecting from me, I wasn't being particularly arrogant or asshole, I just am able to back up what I say and don't go resurrecting old shit to flame and play big guy when you couldn't beat people that are far worse than Omw/Rachy/Spagg/etc, come on dude. I'm not the greatest, I just suck less than the people who have played this game since it came out. That's not arrogance, it's experience and confidence. There's always room for improvement and if you aren't humble to realize that then the further you can go is freak out because everyone surpassed you, flame a bit like anyone gives a \"****\' and quit without ever getting good.