Turn 42

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:29 pm

Elephant wrote:

Alright, I'll post already. Swine, it's your warrior and your $ so really it's your choice. Do I think avoiding a BF for 4 turns is weak? Yep.

I think there's a few things your overlooking.

1)What makes you think you will be BF'd for 4 straight turns? He had another warrior (Celegdraug) killed on turn 41 and didn't BF this turn.

2)What makes you think you'll lose? He may BF with Dagrdraug or maybe he'll BF Suredraug. If you were BF'd by a higher FE warrior, think of the possible skills you'll learn. You can always adjust your strat accordingly.

3)By sitting out for 4 turns you will put a bigger bullseye on SM5 than if you just fought him. What happens after 4 turns when 1/2 the arena is looking to put a notch in it's belt by being the first to knock him off? By the tone of the responses, I think that is a strong possibility.

4)The guy does have 3 kills under his belt. You can't just go on a killing spree and think no one will take offense or seek revenge. By the way, I think 3 kills is cool, good luck with # 4.

Anywho, good luck with whatever you decide.

I'm gonna sit back and watch the fireworks.

Have I ever mentioned to anyone here that I really love Arena 81?

You've made some valid points and I agree with all of them.

Expert Poster Joined: Jun 08, 2008 Posts: 87

Glad to finally be in Shadowspire & Telorinthe. Think I'll like it here.

And now, a rant from a mediocre, yet proud, manager...

In our stable, we have a word for those who challenge down and/or hide from blood feuds. We call them pussies. Can you say pussies in here? Hope so. because record padding cowardly worms who place so much importance on a winning imaginary fighter in a fantasy GAME must have little pride in their real life or be compensating for some extra space in the front of their trousers... and they are pussies. If you are going to play the game, play the friggin' game. It is a game of gladiatorial combat, not a game of hit and run. Geez... Man up.

Suffice it to say I have difficulty respecting any manager who uses such underhanded tactics... no matter what his numbers look like. Why don't you just play D&D with yourself with you as all of the players AND the dungeon master and then brag about how well your fighters did? whoopie. Grow a freakin' pair and find some self-respect.

'nuff said.

Oh, and Nomad... Nice fighting with you once again... even if you did slaughter me. LOL Guess I'd better get a BF planned. You'll be in the arena over the next four turns... right? I will completely understand if my fierce record scares you out of town. LOL

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:50 pm

Tripwire wrote:

So do you think it will be impressive when you graduate him with only a few losses? I would think that most people will not be impressed. At all.

Same as the record garnered by downchallenging. Did you really just try to throw that argument card considering the discussions on this board in the past?

Tripwire wrote:

SwineTiger wrote:

Your presumption is that by avoiding a mismatched BF it makes obtaining a good record a cake walk. I've never graduated a warrior with few losses and probably won't with these guys either, but I wouldn't mind giving it a shot. I never DC and primarily up challenge as high as I can go, so I can live with the shame of ducking a BF. I'll also assume that those who don't relate have never used the avoid sections on their strat sheets.

You are correct. I don't use avoids. Hell, maybe I am in the minority in this. Who knows. Down Challenging to me is part of being a Delarq. I will continue to challenge anyone in my range to get my warrior to win. But to simply not fight to avoid someone or a BF or anything is not the way of a gladiator or a gladiator manager.

I guess Andorians think it is ok. I guess I should expect it from them actually. I don't even know why I am arguing the point.

Holy hypocrisy alert! If "it's all about the wins and that's that, I don't care if anyone likes it" as you and those of like mind choose to profess, then good god how could you have the nerve to try to say you don't like how someone else chooses to play, especially since it's in the spirit of winning at all costs. It's in the rules, so it's just smart management, right?

Seriously, if it's all about winning and that's your mantra, I can almost see where you're coming from and respect you for at least being consistent to that. But, be consistent to it then. If not, then you're nothing more than a cowardly opportunist. Well, that and a hypocrite.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

Some of you are simply twisting around things that I have said in the past concerning my style of play to defend a person that is avoiding fights by not fighting in the arena at all.

In my comments in the past saying that I will do anything to win, the context of the discussion was downchallenging. That is what the intent of my statements at the time were discussing. Downchallenging.

Most people understood that, but to defend another stance people use those words and twist them to act like my intent was something other than what it was.

So for those people I will put what I stand for and break it down for you so you can better understand it.

When I said in the past, "I do whatever it takes to win".

What I meant in that discussion was:

#1: I will downchallenge with a warrior.
#2: I will challenge warriors that I think I can beat.

Thats pretty much it. I would never duck a bloodfued by not fighting, ever. As far as it being in the rules. It isn't in the rules. Not fighting has nothing to do with the rules. You aren't playing the game when you aren't fighting so there are no rules to break or take part in.

I personally think that is a cheap and classless way to get a warrior to graduate with a good record.

And yes I know some of you think that downchallenging is a cheap and classless way as well and I am ok with that. But at least my warriors are fighting..

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

I tell you what I will do. I will make a post and ask the DM populance and see what they think. How is that. I am willing to bet more than 90% of the DM populance will think it a cowardly and classless act as well.

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:05 pm

Tripwire wrote:

I personally think that is a cheap and classless way to get a warrior to graduate with a good record...

I hope so, but that's probably not going to happen.

I decide to sit out the 2nd BF in my DM career to preserve one potentially decent record - which is the opposite of the win at all costs mentality given who I was avoiding - and I've been more vilified than a habitual down challenging sandbagger. Is it honorable to duck out of a mismatched bf? No, it's pretty weaselish on the honor scale. Is it strategically sound if I want to avoid a probable loss? Um, yes. Does it make my record any less legit? Hardly. I'm not invisible and I rarely even use avoids in 81, so dc-ers have a pretty straight pipeline. If anything, it makes me even more of a target, so graduating with a good record is going to be harder in the long run. In other words, I'm not putting myself at an advantage, I'm trying to avoid a disadvantage...the cheap and classless way Wink

Granted, now I'm having second thoughts since some of the managers I work with have weighed in. Doesn't anyone PM anymore?!? Smile

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:10 pm

Tripwire wrote:

I tell you what I will do. I will make a post and ask the DM populance and see what they think. How is that. I am willing to bet more than 90% of the DM populance will think it a cowardly and classless act as well.

Hey, you got my vote. With the exception of one warrior, I've never dodged a BF and would want to take down the chump who did. I'm interested to find out who these hide-&-go seek ten percenters are.

SwineTiger

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 05, 2005 Posts: 1316

...before anyone says I should stay out of this, remember that WhineTiger (love that one) is an in-game friend of mine. If you feel that I shouldn't speak on a public board about a friend, go screw.

ST has all the right in the world to do what he's doing, for whatever reason. The limits on this game allow for his actions.

Should, and has, he be flamed for his actions by his peers? Sure. It's a good part of the game and everyone loves to type their little fingers off in here for one reason or another. Thankfully no one has gone the personal route in all of this. Kudos to everyone as this has escalated to where it is.

Will everyone be challenging his good warrior, and possibly all of his warriors? I'd hope so.

Would it piss me off if it happened to me? Yes, but I'd still commend the person for the stones it took to do it and take the heat, as long as he was respectful in the situation.

Trip's DCing and this situation has nothing in common. If it's supposed to be an 'everything to win' argument you are failing to see one little thing. ST's warrior will not win in this situation for the four turns. Stop with the comparisons please for your intellectual honesty.

... alright, flame retardant suit is now on. Flame away...

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Sep 13, 2006 Posts: 1020

JGW, I can understand you coming to support your friend, but would it not serve him better to simply lower KD and reduce the risk of killing others warriros.

Now 3 kills is a big woopdy do, I have a lunger who had 5 by 12 fights from arena 42 way way back. He killed 3 guys from the same team. Now, I felt bad, but the guy kept BFing with ABs.

What ST is doing lacks a level of honor, just like that winning at all cost argument. Truth be told no one cares what your record is, or my record is, but people do care if you are a player that values honor or one who uses flaws in the gaming system just to pad stats. Now you could argue the utility(value) of a win is a win, or a good record versus a slightly worse record; however, we all are well aware of who are the most skilled players and those who try to appear to be skilled.

This public service announcment has been brought to you by the letter K and my foot in your butt.

Silly Grimm

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 4:23 am

Tripwire wrote:

Some of you are simply twisting around things that I have said in the past concerning my style of play to defend a person that is avoiding fights by not fighting in the arena at all.

I wasn't defending him at all, actually.

Tripwire wrote:

In my comments in the past saying that I will do anything to win, the context of the discussion was downchallenging. That is what the intent of my statements at the time were discussing. Downchallenging.

Most people understood that, but to defend another stance people use those words and twist them to act like my intent was something other than what it was.

So for those people I will put what I stand for and break it down for you so you can better understand it.

When I said in the past, "I do whatever it takes to win".

What I meant in that discussion was:

#1: I will downchallenge with a warrior.
#2: I will challenge warriors that I think I can beat.

Thats pretty much it. I would never duck a bloodfued by not fighting, ever. As far as it being in the rules. It isn't in the rules. Not fighting has nothing to do with the rules. You aren't playing the game when you aren't fighting so there are no rules to break or take part in.

Now we've made real progress here... So, there isn't any sort of inherent truth in "win at all costs" and it's just in the gray area of each person deciding what they like or think is honorable or not, whether that be downchallenging, or avoiding, or huge experience mistmatches, or ducking a BF, or timing a warrior for a tourney, repeat challenges, etc.

Excellent progress and yes I was mistaken. Because I always thought there was something in the downchallengers attitude that tried to justify it as somehow inherently OK because it was allowed under the rules. When it is truly just another of the grey area personal decisions we all make, for right or for wrong. So, in reality, someone who downchallenges or ducks a bloodfeud is no more right or wrong than the other, just having different opinions.

Tripwire wrote:

I personally think that is a cheap and classless way to get a warrior to graduate with a good record.

And yes I know some of you think that downchallenging is a cheap and classless way as well and I am ok with that. But at least my warriors are fighting..

Of course it it a cheap and classless way as well. Not personally getting on your case necessarily, Trip, you just happen to be one of the most strident in defending down-challenging and attacking as just plain wrong anyone who doesn't agree with your style of play.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

Sentinel wrote:

Trip, you just happen to be one of the most strident in defending down-challenging and attacking as just plain wrong anyone who doesn't agree with your style of play.

I defend the Delarq style of play. At all times. And yes it is a role-playing choice. I think it most comes from the, "I will do what I want regardless of your made up rules" mentality. I have always disliked "Andorian Rules" where there is another set of rules in the arena stating that you can't downchallenge or you will be vilified by the rest of the managers.

That is why I am in pretty much all Delarq arenas with the exception of a few arenas for tourney warriors and contests.

I will continue to vehemently argue against people that attack or naysay against downchallenging. And I will attack people that go against how I think Duelmasters should be played. Its just my personality. I back up my downchallenging and accept all comers by not avoiding as well.

So now you know my stance and can take it how you will.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

PS. I don't even think he will leave the arena for 4 turns. I think he was just stirring the pot perhaps and trying to avoid a BF by getting the guy to think he won't run.

If he does leave the arena for 4 turns however, every one of my warriors that can will challenge his guys with a 10 KD at every opportunity.

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:22 am

Grimm wrote:

would it not serve him better to simply lower KD and reduce the risk of killing others warriros.

My KD has always been pretty low; I think the warrior just has a natural inclination to kill.

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:13 am

SwineTiger wrote:

Geez, now you all made me feel pretty lame. Now I want to take a break out of shame instead of ideology. It is strange though that some of you commentors have no problem dcing so far down that the win is inevitable, yet feel that finding a loophole for the person on the other end of that challenge is unconsciable. Can't have it both ways.

We are about as Andorian as it gets, but when we played in DM81 (and we now play in slow DM83) (the "throwback arenas") we did not expect or understand that they were"Andorian", hence we expected that there might be downchallenging and prepared for it. We do not see downchallenging in these arenas as a surprise, against the rules, or even grey-line. It is what it is. But we don't like it and don't have to agree with the philosophy in general.

We do see avoiding bloodfeuds as "pansyish" in any arena - except maybe DM82. However, it just might happen and we would live through it.

What is pretty unacceptable is not running all five warriors as "pledged" for whatever reason, of which the rationale of "getting bloodfeuded" is pretty doggone lame.

We apologize for putting in our two cents worth, but as ones who worked hard to help make these throwback arenas possible, we felt we had to comment.

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:26 am

The Consortium wrote:

What is pretty unacceptable is not running all five warriors as "pledged" .[/color]

I agree with Consortium, except for "What is pretty unacceptable is not running all five warriors as pledged." The pledge applies to running a full team every turn that you participate, but you already know this.