Turn 42

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:24 pm

Tripwire wrote:

I am not going to go all hateful. But I do think that padding warriors records by not running is pretty pathetic. I could see if it was maybe a contest and even then I wouldn't do it. But to just leave the arena until the bloodfueding is done because your warrior has a good record? 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.

Ok, I know I gave the Rat some grief myself, but this comment seems odd to me. Weren't you one of those who said (approx.) "I don't care what other people think. All I care about is winning. Down challenges, whatever, I don't give a damn what people think of me." I know Kellumbo said something like this, but I thought you were in line with him on this. Yet here your comment is based on what will impress?

I guess I don't see a difference between cutting and running and down-challenges. At least in terms of whether or not impressing people is the goal. Am I wrong in this?

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:26 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.

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.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

SwineTiger wrote:

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.

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.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

Nomad wrote:

I guess I don't see a difference between cutting and running and down-challenges. At least in terms of whether or not impressing people is the goal. Am I wrong in this?

Yes. You are absolutely wrong in this if you can't see the difference between downchallenging in an arena and not fighting to avoid confrontation of any kind to pad the record of a warrior.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:03 am

Part of the deal with this arena is that people would run their guys every turn.

Not doing that simply because you are afraid of a bloodfued is pretty weak.

If you wanted to play that way, you shouldn't have come to 81.

Heck, why don't you just throw some guys in the next tourney so they get a better arena record, even though that was supposed to go against what this arena was about as well.

-Kellumbo

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:06 am

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.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:25 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.

Downchallenging was a perfectly acceptable aspect of the arena. While some consider it poor play, no one will argue that they did not expect it to happen. It's not like when we all agreed to jon this arena, we all agreed that this would be a no downchallenge arena.

Skipping turns in the arena, especially for the reason of avoiding a bloodfued, was specifically one of the things that was not supposed to happen in the arena. When we all joined, we agreed that playing every turn was one of the things that was a draw to the arena.

These are two very, very different things.

-DK

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

Exactly. DCing is part of being a Delarq and part of our play, agree or disagree it is part of the game. It is a style of playing. Andorians don't do it and that is their style of play. Not playing is not a style of play. That is simply not playing.

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Apr 15, 2004 Posts: 2958

There are two rules for this arena: NO TOURNAMENTS/TOURNAMENT PRIZES and IF YOU ARE GOING TO RUN, RUN A FULL TEAM

You do not get to make up additional rules and then yell when people aren't following your imaginary rules. This applies to both Duel2 and life.

This has been a public service announcement.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:36 pm

Those were the two/three rules that were on the pledge. I think you will find many of us entered 81 with that idea in mind. It is not just a new concept or something that we are harping on but was part of the "spirit" of the arena that was discussed and agreed upon when the arena opened.

I know that was my impression and apparently it was Trip and DK's too.

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:15 pm

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?

Advanced Expert Poster Joined: Jul 26, 2006 Posts: 111

On turn 25, Slaughter Mouse 5 killed one of my warriors. In the turn 26 newsletter, Swinetiger said he would sit out the bloodfeud in fear of a huge downchallenge. Maybe a smart move. He did challenge one of my warriors before the BF ended, and he was givin his loss. His warrior has an impressive record for this arena at this point, I don't think ducking his BF is that big of a deal, but it is not going to keep his record near perfect either. Anyways, I'd like to fight SM5 again.
Ikillu

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:52 pm

Tripwire wrote:

Nomad wrote:

I guess I don't see a difference between cutting and running and down-challenges. At least in terms of whether or not impressing people is the goal. Am I wrong in this?

Yes. You are absolutely wrong in this if you can't see the difference between downchallenging in an arena and not fighting to avoid confrontation of any kind to pad the record of a warrior.

In part I think you misunderstood my post. What I find most off is that you (Again I think it was you as well, it might have just been Kellumbo) specifically stated that you didn't care about if people were impressed by you. Yet one of your specific reasons for digging Swinetiger was because people would not be impressed with the good record if he managed to get it. This is what I find to be inconsistent. Except, of course, for the fact that Swinetiger was the one wanting the good record.

As for downchallenges and ducking BFs being very different I will have to disagree. Both are things that are allowable by the rules, will likely aid your record, yet some but not all managers believe to be weak. The sublte differences (fighting vs. not fighting, whatever) don't seem that big to me.

Whatever, it isn't a big deal to me. I generally don't do either. Whatever.

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:11 pm

Ikillu wrote:

On turn 25, Slaughter Mouse 5 killed one of my warriors. In the turn 26 newsletter, Swinetiger said he would sit out the bloodfeud in fear of a huge downchallenge. Maybe a smart move. He did challenge one of my warriors before the BF ended, and he was givin his loss. His warrior has an impressive record for this arena at this point, I don't think ducking his BF is that big of a deal, but it is not going to keep his record near perfect either. Anyways, I'd like to fight SM5 again.
Ikillu

Yes, sitting out an entire bf was kind of a bf bluff, but everyone seemed passionate to discuss it, so I thought I would let this thread take its course.

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:19 pm

Kellumbo wrote:

skipping turns in the arena, especially for the reason of avoiding a bloodfued, was specifically one of the things that was not supposed to happen in the arena. When we all joined, we agreed that playing every turn was one of the things that was a draw to the arena.

These are two very, very different things.

-DK

Yes, two very different things - we agreed to run our full teams every turn that we run them. I've stayed true to that.