Best of all time

it's hard to compare old players with newer ones. almost every player today can perform better than jenuwar did in 2002, but i wouldn't say that they're better players because of this.

the way i compare => i evaluate how good everyone would be if everyone played actively today, and everyone had played for equally long. obviously cmk (after 9 years of non-stop playing) performs better than anyone did after 1 year of playing in 2002, but i'm not interested in that.

for instance, i'd say jenuwar's a better player than simba, purely based on how i good i estimate their technical skill/strategical understanding/etc to be, and how much potential/talent they got...the same applies when you compare old legends VS people who're good today.





that being said, remember that what me/shoop/sidey/chaise/etc had accomplished by 2005-2006 (when most of our st videos were released, which new players use to evaluate how good we were) was all accomplished after 1-3 years of playing. we'd all be levels above our 2006 videos if we kept on playing for 9 years straight like CMK did - and it's even debatable whether current cmk is superior to 2006 legends.

for instance, my video was released almost exactly 2 years after i started playing. this means that all the footage was about 1-2 years after i started the game. now compare that to how enstek, cmk or trollpro performed after 1-2 years. it quickly becomes clear that these toilets shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as me. much less when you also understand that all strategies, theorycrafting, tricks etc were taught (directly or indirectly) to enstek and trollpro, whereas old legends had to ''solve the puzzle'' for themselves, and develoup good strategies for winning.

so to conclude: i'd say the people who dominated the 2006 scene were the best players in history, simply because they would be the best today if they still played actively. this is the only way to make a "best of all time" ranking, compared to a "best current players" ranking. an analogy would be that most high-school students today know more science than newton did, but are they better scientists? over and FUCKEN OUT!

Its hard to judge since people would just host games with no delay reducer/plc/garena/host bots so the better players would be the people hosting as they had the advantage. Its also much easier to get into and become good at Sheep Tag because of these delay reducing programs. Without reducing delay who would be the true top dog?

CHIEFHERO[SKS] wrote:

for instance, my video was released almost exactly 2 years after i started playing. this means that all the footage was about 1-2 years after i started the game. now compare that to how enstek, cmk or trollpro performed after 1-2 years. it quickly becomes clear that these toilets shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as me. much less when you also understand that all strategies, theorycrafting, tricks etc were taught (directly or indirectly) to enstek and trollpro, whereas old legends had to ''solve the puzzle'' for themselves, and develoup good strategies for winning.

so to conclude: i'd say the people who dominated the 2006 scene were the best players in history, simply because they would be the best today if they still played actively. this is the only way to make a "best of all time" ranking, compared to a "best current players" ranking. an analogy would be that most high-school students today know more science than newton did, but are they better scientists? over and FUCKEN OUT!

This is a logical fallacy of gigantic proportions. Are you trying to provoke by being intentionally stupid? I know you as a pretty smart person so i seriously doubt you can be serious, I'm going to reply for the sake of debate though.

Quote :

for instance, my video was released almost exactly 2 years after i started playing. this means that all the footage was about 1-2 years after i started the game. now compare that to how enstek, cmk or trollpro performed after 1-2 years. it quickly becomes clear that these toilets shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as me. much less when you also understand that all strategies, theorycrafting, tricks etc were taught (directly or indirectly) to enstek and trollpro, whereas old legends had to ''solve the puzzle'' for themselves, and develoup good strategies for winning.

My video was made more or less 2 years of playing after i started ST since i quit the game for a 2.5 year period when the game pretty much died. In late 2011 when my video was made I was a 10x better player than you were in 2006. This doesn't say anything though, you yourself was also a 10x better player in 2011 than in 2006 just as everyone else. This is because the game evolves as time passes so you can't really compare a player in 2012 to a player in 2006, just as you said earlier. Just as much as this doesn't prove me to be better than you, it doesn't prove the opposite either. I have no idea why you even brought this up.

As for being taught strategies compared to learning them yourself. This doesn't say anything really, it just means you had a harder time developing than me and Trollpro did. It doesn't mean you're better since you have no idea how me and Trollpro would perform if we played in 2006.

Quote :

so to conclude: i'd say the people who dominated the 2006 scene were the best players in history, simply because they would be the best today if they still played actively. this is the only way to make a "best of all time" ranking, compared to a "best current players" ranking. an analogy would be that most high-school students today know more science than newton did, but are they better scientists? over and FUCKEN OUT!

Wtf do you base this on? What you are saying is basically that you CAN'T be the best ST player unless you played in 2006. Don't you see how wrong this is? Your talent/natural skill /whatever isn't related to when you started playing.

You have a point that it was harder to be the top player in 2006 than in 2013 though, way harder. It just doesn't mean that a top player in 2013 wouldn't be a top player in 2006 aswell.

enstk wrote:

As for being taught strategies compared to learning them yourself. This doesn't say anything really, it just means you had a harder time developing than me and Trollpro did. It doesn't mean you're better since you have no idea how me and Trollpro would perform if we played in 2006.

on top of playing better, we also develouped our own styles and strategies whereas you and trollpro are just replicating our findings. the theory of evolution seems obvious after someone explains it to you, putting the pieces together however requires a LEGEND.

some of the best/smartest players in history used to soloplay, cornermass and play 1on1 in their early carieer. things that seems obvious today is something you/trollpro likely wouldn't have figured out by yourselves, without observing true legends at work. you would be tier 3 in 2006. further more, we'd probably have develouped new/better playstyles and strategies if we played actively today. you and trollpro haven't done anything except copy what legends do. the only thing you've done is getting good at technical aspects. you seem decent because you got everything that was hard to master in 2005 for free. any toilet can get decent technical skill after years of playing, as we CLEARLY see by todays st rofl ^^ combine that with free strategic lessons and you can make the least talented/skilled person appear as somewhat good.

what is it you think  you can do better than 2006 legends exactly? we've already established that gameunderstanding and strategic insight can't be your answer. i can only think about technical skill/runtag. but we've also established that 2006 legends were much better than you/trollpro after equally much playing time. read my last post again to understand how to compare older and newer players. and lastly, how do you account for the fact that 2006 legends are outperforming you and trollpro at all other games as well? it makes very much sense to assume that if one person is better than another at every game they both play, the former would proabably be better at ST if he played actively. talent/skill/understanding correlates across games bro.




ofc we can't know for certain that you and trollpro wouldn't have figured everything out by yourself, but as i have demonstrated, everything points to the contrary. there is only 1 rational conclusion to draw in light of everything discussed so far: it's EXTREMELY likely that the best players of 2006 were more talented than you and trollpro -> they would perform better than you and trollpro given equal playingtime -> they are better players than you and trollpro.

rest of your post is garbadge.

ewoLmaS = ? who is this? Sorry I just didn't know

he is enstekpannawolf.

How the fuck can you and Shoop even be in that list, when Martin is missing. Are u fucking serious?

Edit: Nvm, I call this a troll.

Stay cool Martin isn't a all time player bud. Shoop in his day was considered a good player. Not so much now lol.
Also I think MagooGotBanned deserves to be on the list, this will be criticized but he was defiantly a top player of all time.