Duel2.Com  
•   Home  •  Rules  •  Your Account  •  Forums  • Newsletters  •
Navigate
· Home
· Content
· Encyclopedia
· Forums
· Members List
· Newsletters
· Old Newsletters
· Private Messages
· Setup
· Tourneys
· Your Account
User Info
Welcome, Anonymous
Nickname
Password
(Register)
Membership:
Latest: dad14pansy
New Today: 3
New Yesterday: 11
Overall: 19560

People Online:
Visitors:
Members:
Total: 0
Duel2.Com: Forums

Duel2 :: View topic - Turn 147
 Forum FAQ  •  Search  •  Memberlist  •  Usergroups   •  Register  •  Profile  •  Log in to check your private messages  •  Log in

 
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
Nomad
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 2054
Location: Fargo, ND

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:27 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

An ok turn for the Guild.

2-3, but lost a bloodfeud.

Did I do something I'm not aware of? Is there a reason Bond-Age down-challenged me twice? Once by over 40 points? I'm sure I should know, but who manages that team?

_________________
-Nomad
Sentinels(7)
Nomadic Tribe(21)
Dragonbane Guild(81)
View user's profileSend private message
Terminator
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jul 18, 2006
Posts: 1056

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:56 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Nomad wrote:
An ok turn for the Guild.

2-3, but lost a bloodfeud.

Did I do something I'm not aware of? Is there a reason Bond-Age down-challenged me twice? Once by over 40 points? I'm sure I should know, but who manages that team?


He's been doing that alot lately, so I don't think it's anything specifically directed at you. I just think he's doing his best Kellumbo impersonation.

_________________
We don't get mad, we get even!

Vanek, Manager of the Warmasters (DM-81)
View user's profileSend private message
Darque
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 2340
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:53 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Nomad wrote:
An ok turn for the Guild.

2-3, but lost a bloodfeud.

Did I do something I'm not aware of? Is there a reason Bond-Age down-challenged me twice? Once by over 40 points? I'm sure I should know, but who manages that team?


Hombre is managing. I don't think it is personal either. If you look at the top of the arena, he is top heavy and can only go down if he wants to control the challenge. The DM is an option, but the DM has been blood feuding every turn, so you may have even been a second challenge.

Unrelated to 81, but did you get our EPIC from 107?

_________________
Master Darque

Darque Angels -- 39
Darque Forces -- 31, 45, 47
Darque Ages -- 81
Darque Ages, et al. -- 100
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailYahoo Messenger
Hombre
Advanced Expert Poster
Advanced Expert Poster


Joined: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:45 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I actually attempted to write personal ads, but my work outlook was having problems so they didnt go. One of the ads was referring to the down-challenging. I'll try to be civil about this, but before anyone posts questions or complains, please look at where my warriors are, and KNOW that none of them are at a point where they can beat strikers or total parries, due to skill learns/design whatever, and all the ch. champs are is strikers and TP's. I was challenging the DM every turn but I stopped wasting that challenge because he was bloodfeuding (down more than my challenges btw, but no one says anything about that, even though he has plenty of warriors to BF with) I challenge by style, and to get wins, and I ALWAYS look up first, then if I cant find anyone to beat I start looking down. It's nothing personal to anyone, but if anyone is upset by it, knowing what I said earlier in this post, you go ahead and tell me who i should challenge each turn. I dont see why I would challenge people that would beat me, and when you have the 2 highest pt. warriors and the DM is bloodfeuding, I can ONLY challenge down, so what does it matter if its 8 pts or 40 pts?
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Darque
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 2340
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:10 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Hombre wrote:
I actually attempted to write personal ads, but my work outlook was having problems so they didnt go. One of the ads was referring to the down-challenging. I'll try to be civil about this, but before anyone posts questions or complains, please look at where my warriors are, and KNOW that none of them are at a point where they can beat strikers or total parries, due to skill learns/design whatever, and all the ch. champs are is strikers and TP's. I was challenging the DM every turn but I stopped wasting that challenge because he was bloodfeuding (down more than my challenges btw, but no one says anything about that, even though he has plenty of warriors to BF with) I challenge by style, and to get wins, and I ALWAYS look up first, then if I cant find anyone to beat I start looking down. It's nothing personal to anyone, but if anyone is upset by it, knowing what I said earlier in this post, you go ahead and tell me who i should challenge each turn. I dont see why I would challenge people that would beat me, and when you have the 2 highest pt. warriors and the DM is bloodfeuding, I can ONLY challenge down, so what does it matter if its 8 pts or 40 pts?


HOW DARE YOU make challenges for your warriors to win?? Smile

See, my logic wasn't that far off from it.

_________________
Master Darque

Darque Angels -- 39
Darque Forces -- 31, 45, 47
Darque Ages -- 81
Darque Ages, et al. -- 100
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailYahoo Messenger
Nomad
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 2054
Location: Fargo, ND

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:55 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Darque wrote:
Nomad wrote:
An ok turn for the Guild.

2-3, but lost a bloodfeud.

Did I do something I'm not aware of? Is there a reason Bond-Age down-challenged me twice? Once by over 40 points? I'm sure I should know, but who manages that team?


Hombre is managing. I don't think it is personal either. If you look at the top of the arena, he is top heavy and can only go down if he wants to control the challenge. The DM is an option, but the DM has been blood feuding every turn, so you may have even been a second challenge.

Unrelated to 81, but did you get our EPIC from 107?


Yeah, I got it. I had never had a fight go over 40 minutes before. What was it, 1,400? And they printed every single minute of it! Most of my tournaments aren't that big!
View user's profileSend private message
Grimm
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Sep 13, 2006
Posts: 1001

PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:47 am Reply with quoteBack to top

3-1 turn, which is pretty good (wish my DA made it). Main challenges did not go through, but that is ok.

I may be away for a turn or so, as I have been super occupied in life.

Grats DG on retaining the throne.

_________________
Willy hears ya, Willy don't care.
View user's profileSend private message
Otto_X
Grandmaster Poster
Grandmaster Poster


Joined: Jan 09, 2003
Posts: 596
Location: Moline, IL

PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:58 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

3-2-1 for the Diner, posting our first winning turn since mid-summer, and our first kill in over a year (apologies to LP).

As for the DC situation, I agree with Hombre. When you are at the top you can only fight those lower than you, so challenging "down" is one's only option. You can't be expected to forego challenging and be at the mercy of those below you.

I know everyone has their own version of challenge ethics. In general I don't challenge lower in the rankings unless:
- it's a bloodfeud
- I'm at the top of the rankings and have no other option
- It's a tourney transfer arena or ADM, or
- The other manager has been DCing me and being a jerk about it

_________________
Technology (5), The Syndicate (12), 82nd Illinois (17), Seinfeld (19), Ottoman Empire (32), Bad Bread (33), Ottodrome (47, 84), Scrabble (65), Otto's Diner (81), et al.
View user's profileSend private message
Nomad
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 2054
Location: Fargo, ND

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:52 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I've never understood the argument that if you are at the top it is ok to challenge down. That is what being at the top means - no one above you. Challenges, to me, mean you are saying that someone that is ranked above you shouldn't be - so you issue a challenge. But why do you have a right to always be able to challenge? When my guys are at the top, they simply don't challenge. A down-challenge is a down-challenge, I just don't see why your ranking at the top matters.

But that is just my opinion. I also only look at points - and don't care about FE at all when I consider a challenge. If your ranked above me and I can beat you, then you shouldn't be ranked above me. Having a low FE total shouldn't give you a free pass. So we all have our own interpretation of such things.
View user's profileSend private message
Darque
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 2340
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:46 am Reply with quoteBack to top

Nomad wrote:
But that is just my opinion. I also only look at points - and don't care about FE at all when I consider a challenge. If your ranked above me and I can beat you, then you shouldn't be ranked above me. Having a low FE total shouldn't give you a free pass. So we all have our own interpretation of such things.


I think that is a poor tactical approach. Hombre has the 2 top ranked CCs. The only challenge above them is the DM, who has stated publicly that he will be blood feuding for 4 turns to maintain the throne. So everyone who focuses in on Recognition points starts yammering when he challenges below him -- to challenges that he can actually get through? No, sorry, does not compute. Having lower recognition doesn't get you a free pass either.

I'm not rehashing the old argument here, but I do think the logic is flawed. I especially think that when in one breath someone says down challenging is wrong (via recognition) and then in the next breath says FE doesn't matter.

If you (this is the plural you - not directed at Nomad) are anywhere near me, whether above/below recognition or FE and are a good challenge, you shouldn't be because I will challenge you if it serves my overall goals for my team(s). Because if anyone thinks I'm just going to set my warriors out there on a limb and let anyone take a shot at them without some say so in the matter then they better get their head examined. I get two avoids and two challenges and I will be using them every turn, UP or DOWN. If you think I'm going to challenge you, use your avoids, or better yet your challenges for a better match up.

But that is just my opinion.

_________________
Master Darque

Darque Angels -- 39
Darque Forces -- 31, 45, 47
Darque Ages -- 81
Darque Ages, et al. -- 100
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailYahoo Messenger
Grimm
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Sep 13, 2006
Posts: 1001

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:05 am Reply with quoteBack to top

I tend to agree with the CC thing, because if not on maintenance I feel I have to challenge someone.

I also agree with Nomad I tend to look at rec pts not FE. A 4-1 guy who is above my 8-7 guy is not a downchallenge. In fact, I think I am doing you a favor; however, there are extremes I am sure that do complicate this.

As I noted in pevious posts that I believe targetting can also be a form of down challenging.

_________________
Willy hears ya, Willy don't care.
View user's profileSend private message
KidArcane
Advanced Master Poster
Advanced Master Poster


Joined: Apr 26, 2003
Posts: 474
Location: San Antonio, TX

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:48 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I look at Terrablood's style sheet and challenge based on style vs style probabilities. FE is noted, but not generally taken too seriously. So, if a fighter has five fights to my one, but he's just a few points away from me, AND the style matchup looks favorable, I'll bite. Sometimes I've jumped up several points by aiming high and making some 'surprise' challenges. I've had guys killed that way too, of course...

I've noticed that some managers like to keep hammering on the same matchup. I understand the ideology, but it's repugnant. If I'd had good luck beating on a warrior, I might try it again down the road, but I rarely challenge the same fighter twice in a row, even if I win. In fact, I'm more likely to challenge repeatedly if I LOSE and didn't expect to lose, or it was a very close fight, versus going after a matchup that seems like a 'sure thing' again and again and again...

Avoids, on the other hand, rarely work for me. How do I know who's going to challenge little old me? And anyway, until I have people up in the Adepts I usually don't worry about avoids at all. It's challenging and fun to plot and plan; challenges and avoids are important. However, it takes time and often I just don't have that kind of time to sit and ruminate over the possibilities. Gotta get that turn in on time! Smile

_________________
"Don't make me destroy you." -- Darth Vader
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Scruffy Puff
Advanced Master Poster
Advanced Master Poster


Joined: Jul 15, 2008
Posts: 382

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:43 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Hombre - You don't have to justify your actions. If you play within RSI rules, who cares what anyone else thinks?

Some people like to complain when you don't play exactly how they want you to play. Especially in Shadowspire where the crybaby ratio is EXTRA high.

Regarding the never-ending DL debate, if you challenge someone with less recognition points, it's a DL. If you challenge someone with less FE, that's a DL too. In both cases, you're trying to take advantage of a warrior. But so what?

If both our warriors are in adepts, and my warrior beats your lesser recognition and/or FE warrior, maybe you don't belong there.

There's a reason RSI doesn't allow adepts to challenge initiates (yes, I know - BFs, but if that's your response, than you're missing the point).

If you're in my bracket, you're fair game. If you don't like it, contact RSI and vent your grievances there, because they may actually care about your opinion. I don't.
View user's profileSend private message
Hombre
Advanced Expert Poster
Advanced Expert Poster


Joined: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:52 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

I think I was justifying it because I'm not normally known as a down-challenger (I think?), but for the record, I NEVER complain about that stuff. I never care at all if the top challenger-adept challenges my low adept, for example. I'm barely hanging on to the excitement of this game and I'm really just hoping my guys graduate because i want some new blood, so I'm just hoping to keep getting my guys PP's every turn. No, I dont feel good about challenging down, and especially to the same warrior, but I really want some replacements and want my current warriors out of here as soon as possible.

I also think Nomad was just wondering if there was something personal between he and I, and wasnt complaining about the down challenging and I read it a bit wrong. I actually had to look at the newsletter because I didnt have a clue that I went after the same team twice, like I said before, I was looking at style. Of course, one challenge backfired...
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Darque
ArchMaster Poster
ArchMaster Poster


Joined: Jun 21, 2002
Posts: 2340
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:30 pm Reply with quoteBack to top

Scruffy Puff wrote:
Hombre - You don't have to justify your actions. If you play within RSI rules, who cares what anyone else thinks?

Some people like to complain when you don't play exactly how they want you to play. Especially in Shadowspire where the crybaby ratio is EXTRA high.

Regarding the never-ending DL debate, if you challenge someone with less recognition points, it's a DL. If you challenge someone with less FE, that's a DL too. In both cases, you're trying to take advantage of a warrior. But so what?

If both our warriors are in adepts, and my warrior beats your lesser recognition and/or FE warrior, maybe you don't belong there.

There's a reason RSI doesn't allow adepts to challenge initiates (yes, I know - BFs, but if that's your response, than you're missing the point).

If you're in my bracket, you're fair game. If you don't like it, contact RSI and vent your grievances there, because they may actually care about your opinion. I don't.


I would click like, but I'm on the wrong site.

_________________
Master Darque

Darque Angels -- 39
Darque Forces -- 31, 45, 47
Darque Ages -- 81
Darque Ages, et al. -- 100
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailYahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:      
Post new topicReply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB 2.0.10 © 2001 phpBB Group

Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Forums ©
:: fisubsilver shadow phpbb2 style by Daz :: PHP-Nuke theme by coldblooded (www.nukemods.com) ::