I don't get this DM vs RM discussion.
They can't be compared, nor can the transition from RM to DM or DM to RM be compared.
RM has all the ages, from dark age to imperial age, meaning there are way more things to learn, such as build orders, strategies, a grush, a drush, villager micro, dark-,feudal-, castle- and imperial age details and so on, so it's way harder for a DM'er to transition to RM and do well than for a RM'er to go to DM and do well.
DM has a smaller learning curve, due the huge amount of resources and needing to work in the start, then it almost turns into normal Post Imperial, with small differences still. But to do well in DM, you need speed. You don't need that in RM, you can be 2k4 without speed as long as you know what to do.
However, even though DM is easier to learn for RM'ers than vice versa, I don't see how that takes credit away from those who are the best at DM? They've spent a lot of time perfecting DM, just as we have done trying to perfect RM. Most of the DM players, at least on 18-19+ have a good talent for this game, simply due to the fact that they have a very good speed, which many RM players lack. If they would switch to RM completely and try hard to learn it, once they have got past the stage we've all been at in terms of learning build orders and everything mentioned earlier, they would be better than a lot of others at the same stage simply due to speed, which makes them more talented than the other RM'ers at the same level, oooor?
It's two different styles of play, DM being very fast paced from the start, while RM has more thought into it throughout the ages, we might as well argue why football players would be worse at handball than handball players in football. Really unnecessary.
And I must say, RM community doesn't look even a tiny bit better compared to the DM community in these discussions. It's embarrasing to read some of your posts to be honest.
They can't be compared, nor can the transition from RM to DM or DM to RM be compared.
RM has all the ages, from dark age to imperial age, meaning there are way more things to learn, such as build orders, strategies, a grush, a drush, villager micro, dark-,feudal-, castle- and imperial age details and so on, so it's way harder for a DM'er to transition to RM and do well than for a RM'er to go to DM and do well.
DM has a smaller learning curve, due the huge amount of resources and needing to work in the start, then it almost turns into normal Post Imperial, with small differences still. But to do well in DM, you need speed. You don't need that in RM, you can be 2k4 without speed as long as you know what to do.
However, even though DM is easier to learn for RM'ers than vice versa, I don't see how that takes credit away from those who are the best at DM? They've spent a lot of time perfecting DM, just as we have done trying to perfect RM. Most of the DM players, at least on 18-19+ have a good talent for this game, simply due to the fact that they have a very good speed, which many RM players lack. If they would switch to RM completely and try hard to learn it, once they have got past the stage we've all been at in terms of learning build orders and everything mentioned earlier, they would be better than a lot of others at the same stage simply due to speed, which makes them more talented than the other RM'ers at the same level, oooor?
It's two different styles of play, DM being very fast paced from the start, while RM has more thought into it throughout the ages, we might as well argue why football players would be worse at handball than handball players in football. Really unnecessary.
And I must say, RM community doesn't look even a tiny bit better compared to the DM community in these discussions. It's embarrasing to read some of your posts to be honest.