you are legendary! do you want a medal with that?

There are too many qualifications of "The best" to declare any one person it.

I narrowed those qualifications down to just Low resources Sail...

@Irish: When will I be receiving my medal and my check of 10000 dollars....I really need a better connection and a better computer...

Inside that there are certain types of rushes, then micro, macro, innovation and response to unexpected moves. There is also memorizing one strategy perfectly which you may be the best at, but IMO it takes a lot more skill to find new ideas on your own...

I did find my own Ideas...I made Rome what it is today...had it not been for me and vin...mostly me making the strategies Rome wouldnt be anything...I've got a boom strat that works for all civs if you get a little creative when you do it with certain civs it works very well...the rush strat is something that was discussed on this forum and something I made as well...I have adapted to getting TDs and trying to protect my base since there are a bunch of p*ssy building rapers...however it seems my TDs arent effective at all....I attack a guys TD with 64 army I lose about half that army with morale...he attacks me when I have 2 TDs an army of almost equal size and is able to kill a barrack a level 2 granary and almost another barrack before I give him my msn and tell him to contact me when he gets skill and leave...

I like the strat when you mass town defences and egyptian cats. Then when they attack, run behind them w/ cleo and convert the artilary to your evil side. < laughs >
Congrats Roman.

Maybe he does more because his macro is better? Or he has a more clever way of defeating a TD?

There was no micro...it was straight up just click the button and my TDs and Army attacking him...

You guys are all good players, and you've been excellent supporters of the game. You all deserve gold medals, or golden statues, or something for you devotion and excellence.

The term "best" not only applies to a certain gameplay choice, but also to a given point in time in every case. For example, Joe Namath was the best QB in the NFL the day the Jets won the Superbowl, but he's an old geezer today.

There are moments in time when players in every competitive realm may be the "best" among their fellow competitors. Jack Fleck won the US Open in 1955, beating the legendary golfer Ben Hogan in an 18 hole playoff. And for that week, and the day of the playoff, Jack Fleck was "the best". Fleck won only 3 more professional events in his career, so was he "the best"? Not likely, but he certainly had his moments, and he was an extraordinary talent to have beaten everyone in the 1955 US Open field, and to have bested Ben Hogan in an 18 hole playoff.

Take excellence for what it's worth, but the "best" player is always determined by the most recent tournament or competitive experience. The designation changes frequently, IMO.

You deserve a grammy for your wise words and wisdom

You deserve a grammy for your wise words and wisdom

That has been proved time and again

Roman wins at being the best low res player for Plains and Wide open maps. So there.

I've been the best since I started on RaF Chonaman. Can I not be the exception that will always be the Best at Low Res? Thank you Athens

Modest, too.

Seriously though, nobody can claim they are the best at anything really, seeing as there are always people to take their place and always people that they have never played.

Who's going to take my place? and the only people who havent played me are the ones who talk crap and then dont play...

Frankly, we don't have the authority to declare anyone the "Best low Resources player of the game." The game developers, in association with the MP franchise are responsible for creating a ladder, etc. for this purpose.

The fact that the ladder was inadequate in determining the best player/players is something we have no control over, officially.

Roman, you and GoSailing have long seemed to be the best players of the game intrinsically, and all those who've played this game in MP certainly acknowledge your excellence. It's not possible (given the inactivity of the ladder) to give statistical acknowledgement of this fact, but those of us in this community know you have been a formidable opponent, and among the best we've encountered. Keep up the good work, and do our community proud with your next conquests.

Thanks Chona you make me want to cry even though you havent called me the best yet Could we go by records on our accounts combined and that prove to you we're the best?

I'm pretty sure not. Look, who wants to be the best of a near-dead game filled with cheaters and noobs anyway, you answer me that.

Lol, thats pretty much my take on it. I'd rather be the best at a game that actually has a crowd.

You know, the games where you have to put in 500+ hours to get into the top 10,000 on the leaderboard. Thats currently how I am on BF 2142, or at least last time I checked. I've been busy the last two weeks so I haven't played but I was in 8,000th place. It doesn't sound as good as 1st or 2nd place, but when there are over 1 million players, its not bad.

Now it's time to let the cat out of the bag.

That "rascal" that was probably very annoying from RomanPwnage's standpoint that destroyed his base happened to be ME. What you're mistaken about is, however, I did not have 64 men. It was about 40. I know how big a formation looks with 64 swordsmen.

Overall, I believe you are better RomanPwnage. I will mention, however, that it has only been recently that I've gotten much more skilled with this game. I'm considered virtually (along with my brother) among the very top players in High-Res, but also among the "good" in low-resources.

I've been devulging more into the various strats of this game lately, and have spent less time on posting.

In addiiton to all of this, I am forced to mention that I whole-heartedly disagree that there is no skill to High-Res settings as many of my good friends such as RomanPwnage and GoSailing would like to believe.

SSSi did not put the option there for no reason. It is because High-Resources is a viable option that does have strategical elements. Even _oOXxXOo_, who is a good friend of mine and well-known in the HG community, enjoys the wonderful benefits High-Resources has to offer.

My conclusion to the matter is that anyone who insinuates, or states that High-Resource games have no strategical value simply have not played the game on high-resources enough to realize just how strategical and time-sensitive it is.

When I first began High-Resource games, I used to think "LOL, Deathmatch!". Not so. High-Resources in Rise & Fall is like night and day compared to Deathmatch in previous RTS titles, such as AoE, AoK, EE, and Empires. Deathmatch started you out with 20,000 of most resources, while Rise & Fall starts you out with only 1000. What convinced me of the skill associated with High-Resources was when the enemy was ALWAYS able to outproduce me and dominate all the outposts on the map REGARDLESS of how well or how fast I exhausted my resources and my "abilities" to crank out armies.

Based on this, I have worked on several High-Resource strategies that vary, and some take quite a bit of skill. timing is everything...taking the first outpost with just 15 or 24 guys (depending on the map, or if the enemy is right next to you or not) can mean your life or death. In what order villagers are trained to gold and wood, and how fast you make your second TC go to Gov Center also play critical roles in how fast you will dominate the map before the enemy does.

Low resources will always have its place in my heart. But I cannot safely agree with the bashing that goes on against High-Resources. I have played both enough to know their differences well.

The final conclusion to the matter is:

Both settings require skill and have viable strats. Interestingly, however, I have found more build-order starts with high-res than I have with low. With low resources, you are basically limited to 3 different kinds of starts. With High-Resources, however, I have found that there about 10 different ways to start, which can prove fatal or life-saving in the end depending on your position on the map, etc.

Best wishes to all!

[This message has been edited by Lysimachus (edited 07-12-2007 @ 09:01 PM).]

I agree that there are strategies on high resource and its not as bad as Deathmatch (God those DM noobs on Empires are annoying ) but all the strategic elements you mentioned are also crucial in low resource.

I may be misunderestimating () high resource but I believe you are doing the same to low resource. The idea that there are only about 3 different starts for it is simply ridiculous.

taking the first outpost with just 15 or 24 guys

Thats the same with low resource. If you are against me and you don't have an outpost within 5-7 minutes on low resource you are dead. Its as simple as that. I know its the same with Roman and some other players as well. The only possible exception is Corridor of Blood where the outposts are about 3 times stronger (wonder if thats by design). Still though, if you don't take that first outpost within the first couple minutes you have no chance at all.

Depends on what civ your using on how many men you use to get outpost...