![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
Event: CPM Masters Cup
[hide=rat vs. dziku (1/6, 22cet)]
rat vs. 
dziku [2
Edited by MaJunior at 22:18 UTC, 1 June 2006 - 33399 Hits
<< Comment #1 @ 18:06 UTC, 31 May 2006 >>
(Link, Reply)
By 
aves
aves
expect a good match here :)
winner bracket final? didn't dziku lose to zoom? probably mistaken.
shame shame shame.
i've always tried to like rat, yet he seems to be the proof that CPM just isn't what it stands for. each demo i've watched of him, i've watched in hope that someone of the 'new school' would take him down with their superior movement, or superior armour control, or at least one of the gameplay alterations in CPM that supposedly makes it more challenging, the ones that separate it so drastically from vq3/osp eh!?. it may just be the fact that i can't pinpoint what makes him so good. his aim is average, his movement is near inexistant, and his judgement of sound...don't get me started.
i just feel as though no matter how good my skills are, they are only a futile attempt to make the game of CPM revolve around something other than positioning, ie, not fighting an up-hill battle. apart from rat's positioning, i am unable to find anything else about him that makes him so good! after watching a demo of him, i feel as though i have learnt nothing, except for how easily exploitable CPM gameplay is, and how all the effort us new-schoolers put into aim/movement etc. is a complete waste of time.
that'd be all fair and well if this game didn't stand for what it currently does; the addition of complex requirements such as movement, tiered armour management etc., to make it more challenging than vq3/osp. it feels the opposite, easy spawn frags, overpowered RL, small maps, as a whole after 2 or so years of playing it, it feels as though CPM is a NOOBED DOWN version of Q3. hell, i only took it up because the netcode was so good, i took the noob way out instead of battling on with 120 ping in OSP!
anyway, well played rat.
i've always tried to like rat, yet he seems to be the proof that CPM just isn't what it stands for. each demo i've watched of him, i've watched in hope that someone of the 'new school' would take him down with their superior movement, or superior armour control, or at least one of the gameplay alterations in CPM that supposedly makes it more challenging, the ones that separate it so drastically from vq3/osp eh!?. it may just be the fact that i can't pinpoint what makes him so good. his aim is average, his movement is near inexistant, and his judgement of sound...don't get me started.
i just feel as though no matter how good my skills are, they are only a futile attempt to make the game of CPM revolve around something other than positioning, ie, not fighting an up-hill battle. apart from rat's positioning, i am unable to find anything else about him that makes him so good! after watching a demo of him, i feel as though i have learnt nothing, except for how easily exploitable CPM gameplay is, and how all the effort us new-schoolers put into aim/movement etc. is a complete waste of time.
that'd be all fair and well if this game didn't stand for what it currently does; the addition of complex requirements such as movement, tiered armour management etc., to make it more challenging than vq3/osp. it feels the opposite, easy spawn frags, overpowered RL, small maps, as a whole after 2 or so years of playing it, it feels as though CPM is a NOOBED DOWN version of Q3. hell, i only took it up because the netcode was so good, i took the noob way out instead of battling on with 120 ping in OSP!
anyway, well played rat.
Edited by kmt at 08:54 UTC, 2 June 2006
You can categorize experience to some extent. It's tricky though. :)
There is the first time experience, which I really wouldn't call experience though. It's more how you react to things which you are unfamilar with. Those situations are more based on how fast are you to determine the best solution from the worse ones.
This though I don't see as important as the latter ones, mainly because people figure out things at diffrence pace. Eventhough this might help at the beginning, you get good faster and don't have to play as much as some. People are still going to get on the same skill level and past it. This I would say tells only how gifted are you up to some point.
Utilizing your experiences. Though first you analyze and mimic other players style, which could also be included to the first time experiences. Be it fast, mindless chessing for the cheer fun or just slow, over-thinking, predicting every move of your opponent. After that it comes down to how you analyze your mistakes and find the better solutions on situations your already familar which will eventually make up your playing style. Like how position the best and when to do what at time. Seeing the bigger picture and all the small details are in my opinion really important. What I mean by this is interpreting every small detail of your opponents play. This obviously carries the adventage that it is much easier to adapt other people playing styles as you react to their moves and not the other way around. While this gets easier the more you have experience but also obviously harder the better your opponent is.
That's one of the reasons why nowadays I don't need to time perfect. I only do it when i feel i have to but who I work hard when you can get by lesser work.. I just rather out-play my opponents. Drive them to situations where they are uncomfortable, unfamilar and force them to mistakes.
I'll write more later. Hope you understand it. Dyslexia, work and hurry don't go hand to hand while writing essays.
There is the first time experience, which I really wouldn't call experience though. It's more how you react to things which you are unfamilar with. Those situations are more based on how fast are you to determine the best solution from the worse ones.
This though I don't see as important as the latter ones, mainly because people figure out things at diffrence pace. Eventhough this might help at the beginning, you get good faster and don't have to play as much as some. People are still going to get on the same skill level and past it. This I would say tells only how gifted are you up to some point.
Utilizing your experiences. Though first you analyze and mimic other players style, which could also be included to the first time experiences. Be it fast, mindless chessing for the cheer fun or just slow, over-thinking, predicting every move of your opponent. After that it comes down to how you analyze your mistakes and find the better solutions on situations your already familar which will eventually make up your playing style. Like how position the best and when to do what at time. Seeing the bigger picture and all the small details are in my opinion really important. What I mean by this is interpreting every small detail of your opponents play. This obviously carries the adventage that it is much easier to adapt other people playing styles as you react to their moves and not the other way around. While this gets easier the more you have experience but also obviously harder the better your opponent is.
That's one of the reasons why nowadays I don't need to time perfect. I only do it when i feel i have to but who I work hard when you can get by lesser work.. I just rather out-play my opponents. Drive them to situations where they are uncomfortable, unfamilar and force them to mistakes.
I'll write more later. Hope you understand it. Dyslexia, work and hurry don't go hand to hand while writing essays.
Edited by rat at 13:26 UTC, 2 June 2006
interesting stuff :)
plz do write more
plz do write more
Because there's nothing to share. It's just practice.
I don't know if you realize that, but you're giving cpma on of the biggest compliments you could possibly think of, and that is that smart play (other than just item control) will prevail over pure technical skills, which btw IS what cpma stands for. All the changes in gameplay were made for exactly that reason
/edit
http://www.challenge-world.com/forum/ikonboar...3347;st=40
arqon's first post pretty much sums it up
/edit
http://www.challenge-world.com/forum/ikonboar...3347;st=40
arqon's first post pretty much sums it up
Edited by .syL at 11:10 UTC, 2 June 2006
So let me get this straight. You want to win CPMA using aim/movement alone? No intelligent play?
Heh, I really dont know what to say. Have we come that far that CPMA critics have now turned 180 degrees, blaming it of being too strategic and not aim/movement enough? Oh tempora, oh mores...
Heh, I really dont know what to say. Have we come that far that CPMA critics have now turned 180 degrees, blaming it of being too strategic and not aim/movement enough? Oh tempora, oh mores...
They're a risky tool, and not used that often, if you're in a desperate hurry to get it before the enemy, then yes, it might be used, but if you're in a fairly comfortable lead and you don't need to take that kind of gamble, noone's gonna do it except for some guy who wants to impress the people on GTV.
And even though rat's style isn't extremely movement-centric, it's not bad, it would look alot different in vq3 where you couldn't escape the same situations etc. Even though he's no Vo0 or mew, he uses it, even if it isn't a gamedecider.
I doubt rat could get by with the same kind of map/armor control in vq3 without a polish bot-shaft to go with it.
And even though rat's style isn't extremely movement-centric, it's not bad, it would look alot different in vq3 where you couldn't escape the same situations etc. Even though he's no Vo0 or mew, he uses it, even if it isn't a gamedecider.
I doubt rat could get by with the same kind of map/armor control in vq3 without a polish bot-shaft to go with it.
It looks like you cant see the details. I really dont know what else to say. Rats style allways impressed me. It looks to ME like rat doesnt care if he loses or wins. Maybe that makes him so strong. In 10000 situations i would run away to get some hps, but not rat, he pushes 2 rockets in his opponents face before he goes for some hps. Thats him ;)
just a load of contradicting bollocks
think
think
Ive said it all along, these new players arent as good as the top old players, anyways, cpm allows players to use different skill sets to become top players, unlike say q4 which is mostly down to aim whoring, if you look at the top 3 players of cpm ever they all have different style, rat has awesome prediction, aph has awesome movement and matr0x had awesome aim.
Why should thew changes make other players be able to beat rats prediction, smart tactics and control? rats been around longer than 99% of cpm players if you go watch his demos from 2000-2002 you'll see he played with 100-200ms ping, before the netcode players, i think this is the reason why rats style is so good, on top of his natural talent he had to learn map control and prediction more than any other player out there
Why should thew changes make other players be able to beat rats prediction, smart tactics and control? rats been around longer than 99% of cpm players if you go watch his demos from 2000-2002 you'll see he played with 100-200ms ping, before the netcode players, i think this is the reason why rats style is so good, on top of his natural talent he had to learn map control and prediction more than any other player out there
his aim is average, his movement is near inexistant, and his judgement of sound...don't get me started.
i'm not trying to flame but those words seem really weird to me. i've seen high LG accuracies in many of his demos where he holds people up in the air for many seconds. his RL aim is considered inhuman by many CPMA players and i've seen him zipping through maps showing great movement skills.. performing all the jumps etc etc. they're all there in his older demos.
to a certain extent, i can understand what you're talking about though. in this tourney, his pov imo has not been so flashy when compared to other players or his older demos. people on irc told me he had been inactive for a long time so that could be the cause but that only shows how good he is. even when his aim is off and his movement is not at its best, he still beats the world's best players because he seems to know exactly what is needed to come out victorious. i think it's quite clear from watching his game and reading his post on top that one of his best skills is the ability to read his opponent and adapt accordingly. imo, this is what separates a good player from a great player.
I gave rat's style a thought too. I've also noticed sometimes average aim, or moves that are basic of cpm movement whereas you could do something more 'pro'. My conclusion is what rat has confirmed - he doesn't need to do it all. I'm gonna repeat rat's words, but he adapts his style to his opponent.
The fact he doesn't perform every trick available on map, doesn't mean he can't do it. He uses what he needs and when he needs. Probably best strategic player even it doesn't seem so at first.
His movement is awesome, I've seen enough. And perhaps he has flaws in hitscan weaps (or I just can recall such situations better than the others), but RL is god like. EOT.
The fact he doesn't perform every trick available on map, doesn't mean he can't do it. He uses what he needs and when he needs. Probably best strategic player even it doesn't seem so at first.
His movement is awesome, I've seen enough. And perhaps he has flaws in hitscan weaps (or I just can recall such situations better than the others), but RL is god like. EOT.