POS where are you. I consider you inactive. You don't qualify.
So far he isn't on the list. I don't see the problem. Though tbh, I think he deserves a spot, at least somewhere in the middle.
-Why did you move chess behind me....? I mean he's good but I would say I'm better..
From what I've seen i agree with soccer on this, he most likely is better, at least from the little I've seen since coming back.
what about me
i feel left out
This could be caused by two things:
a) you aren't considered good enough
b) you are inactive
'b' is pretty easy to fix. However, if you aren't good enough (and I don't personally remember you), tough luck; train more. this is meant to be the list of the best active players, so you must be both active, and good.
Lol Really? What about the Old Pros that come online from time to time?
Umm... names? Saying a statement like that is fine, if you back it up with facts.
Come on Guys this Top 20 is Fake except for the first few people.
Again, saying things like this is fine, IF you at least add some constructive criticism. Don't say 'this list sux'; say 'I think you should move/add/remove this and that guy'.
1v1s dont determine the best overall player, It all comes down to the 2v2 and how the person syncs with their partners. 1v1s just show who is faster at Pinning the Opponent thats all. 2v2 is all about where its at, it doesnt matter if someone rapes a guy at 1v1s
Now, I disagree. If a person is very good in 1v1, he will also be good at 2v2. However, a person that considers himself to be good at 2v2 wil not necessarily be good at 1v1, or any other mode.
1v1s aren't about who can pin faster. that is the starting point, but not the main point. While it is true that just about every successful 1v1 strategy requires pinning and 'rushing', 1v1 is about much more than that. Once it is assumed we both 'rush', then all the interesting things like micro and macro come out. I agree that 2v2 is fun and challenging, but 1v1 isn't boring either.
or like soccer said:
If a person is very skilled a 1v1, they are most likely a very good player. Skill level does not equal good teamwork skills with a single player.
I would find it very hard to gauge a single player's skill by just watching them in 2v2 matches. There are too many added factors with the extra players on each side at hand.
Likewise, zing said his list was based off of many things, not just skill in 1v1, and it's mostly the same as royalguy's now I think.
------------------
In 2v2, you make fewere decisions than 1v1, plus you can stretch your build less, as you have a partner. Say it is a 1v1, you are post and they are monarchy post. If they get a mod phantom + a tank, it is pretty hard to counter, so you either go dual build or do your best. However, in 2v2 you probably will have a forging team. Therefore, it is no threat.
This is partially true, in my opinion. While it is true that 2v2 can be less active than 1v1, when all participants are pro's, the games get quite intense. You have to adapt in pro 2v2 almost as much as in 1v1, and more so against non-conventional strategies.
Spec ops is less strong in 2v2, as you have 2 people to coordinate.
I don't really agree with this, since in 2v2 there are twice as many units on the field on each side. therefore, each missile will kill an average of twice as many units (duh). also, each side can theoretically get twice as many missiles, adding even more to the carnage. infact, almost every pro 2v2 game will have missiles on AT LEAST on side, more often both. Whereas in 1v1, you can have games where not even a single missile is fired (rare, but happens).
Due to this balance, 2v2 is easier than 1v1.
I don't think 2v2 is any easier than 1v1, if all participants are pro's. As i said, 2v2s get pretty intense, as the battle for the center has over twice as many units, many of which you can't directly control. There is also more room for comebacks, and the games in general are much longer. However, to each his own.
cheers,
Guesty.
