Turn 119

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

LePentarque wrote:

Assurnasirbanipal wrote:

I am fully Delarquan on this issue. BF away. While I normally try not to kill, I do make exceptions and this might be one, especially if the warrior that died was one I cared about.

On the other side, if you are fearful of this type of vengeance, sit your warrior out. It is a manager's right to fight or not fight a warrior on a given turn. True, in DM 81, you are expected to sit the entire team out, but it is an option.

I also think that Recognition points mean little in terms of what a Down Challenge is. A down challenge to a warrior you've fought twice before and split is not a down challenge in my book. An UP challenge to a warrior you've beaten handily twice before is about as bad as your typical Challenger Adept to Adept down challenge.

Sitting out a warrior in dm81 is supposed to be forbidden... I dont know if RSI would do something, but we all are gentlemen, dont we ?

Yea, sitting out a warrior in 81 is a no-no

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:39 am

Otto_X wrote:

Quote:

'66 CORVETTE (81-1036) (13-6-3,139) of AMERICAN MUSCLE bloodfeuded HOT BROWN
(81-1678) (1-0-1,1 Cool

of OTTO'S DINER. Down 121, and a kill. '66 CORVETTE easily
killed HOT BROWN in a 1 minute uneven Bloodfeud Title melee. I've got an idea there
will be hard words over this.

Ok, here's my question. What would you do?

This question transcends DM81 and as such I felt compelled to respond. Given the options I would do 1 of 2 things.

1. I would forgive the death and not BF and move on, hoping that my replacement was decent.

2. Design my replacement to beat the offending warrior (you have 4 turns to BF!) And challenge away, resulting in a fairer fight and a more challenging one.

Maybe I am too Andorian for situations like this but I also have respect for my opponents and their warriors and definitely would not take advantage of these circumstances for a cheap kill. I could see a situation such as Action describes as a unique one (Turf War) and certainly a time where I would bend my rules but I would also not go for the kill in that situation, but rather look for 4 easy wins to collect the points.

Just my 2 cents..............

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:36 am

I see a lot of people justifying actions here--basically very few of us are totally clean ethically. You can't complain that a bloodfeud downchallenge is "too mean", when many of us likely have done something outside the ethical boundaries of what someone else would do.

If I felt like it, I would have zero problems bloodfeuding down 100+ to many of you in this thread. Otto X, while a nice guy, has historical ties to one of the most unapologetic downchallenge/killing/bullying alliances of all time. Elephant has sided against me with the FONZ teams in previous TOGS. Even the Consortium has thrown an intentional downchallenge at me in the Turf War.

On the other hand, there's managers like LP, who have never DC'd me, and if they killed me in a random and it was clearly not-intentional, I might not even bloodfeud at all.

So in conclusion, almost everyone has pissed off someone. Just play tourneys and sandbag the dead tournaments when someone kills one of your guys off! (Heck, a lot of times I don't even notice when someone kills off one of my guys in DM 84!)

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 4:55 am

Elephant wrote:

Ok, I'll asked both of you again. Would you or wouldn't BF if your guy was killed? Or should I say do you or don't you.

If the answer is yes, then who would have BF'd with?
Here's your choices:
'68 Road Runner 27-12 144 points. Difference of 38 FE and 126 Rec points - Was also current DM and I knew his favs
'66 Corvette 13-6 139 points Difference of 18 FE and 121 Rec points
'71 Mach One 15-10 63 Difference of 24 FE and 44 Rec points

So as far as how I roll:I'd say I almost always BF when I have a warrior killed. So you saw who I had to BF with. So what's the problem? Was I not supposed to BF?

I ALWAYS expect to be BF'd if I kill someones warrior. I look forward to facing Otto if he choses to BF. If he were to kill '66 then so be it. That's the game. I will say for anyone who is thinking of challenging '66, I'm going for the record of 5 kills in the arena, so challenge at your own risk.

it's not the BF that irks me. i'm all about BFs. it's the motive behind it. a 0 FE guy randomly matches up with your putz and kills him. big deal. get 4 easy wins and graduate your guy if you want.

and if you get the 5 kills, won't it really seem like 4.5? 1 FE after all, right? you should shoot for 6 just to make it legit. i'm just sayin'........... Cool

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:41 am

bubbaganoosh wrote:

it's not the BF that irks me. i'm all about BFs. it's the motive behind it. a 0 FE guy randomly matches up with your putz and kills him. big deal. get 4 easy wins and graduate your guy if you want.

and if you get the 5 kills, won't it really seem like 4.5? 1 FE after all, right? you should shoot for 6 just to make it legit. i'm just sayin'........... Cool

Putz or not, he was my warrior and now I'm stuck DAing for mulitple turns. So yes, it's kind of a big deal. As far as the four easy wins go, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have pounded him for 4 turns in a row. Funny because I see people BF for 4 turns in a row(with FE advantage), get 4 easy wins and that's ok but what I did isn't?

No, a kill is a kill, a win is a win and a loss is a loss. There are no ".5"s in the game. Now your making wins, loses and kills subjective.

Do I want the record of 5? Sure, but more so I want people to think twice about challenging '66 here on out. Is it worth taking the chance of losing one of your warriors?

In all honesty I hear were you're coming from and we could be back and forth forever on this I'm sure. If I had it to do all over, I'd do it the same. If you kill my guy, I'm gonna seek revenge. In this situation I have alot more FE and Rec Points. Don't kill other people's warriors and you won't have to worry about being BF'd. Call it chickenshit if you like but the alternative is pussyfooting and I'm not gonna do that.

Otto is a manager I respect in 81 and I'm sure he'll have his day. He has been a recent thorn in my side(stopped my 15-0 attempt). I look forward to this worthy adversary coming after me. How cool is the Holy Shiitake vs. '66 Corvette bloodfued title match going to be? If either one gets a kill in the fight that would be epic.

I feel I'm repeating myself on all of this. Everyone knows where I stand on this matter. If someone has a problem with it, they know where to find me.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:52 am

yeah it's a dead horse by now.
Cool

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:56 am

I guess a lot of people are waiting for me to weigh in on this. I've been in Shadowspire for about two years since returning to the game, and I've adopted a policy of no DCs from my team, with respect to rec points. I haven't sought out kills nor have I shied from them, but my record speaks for itself. I actually have a lower kill-to-win ratio than Capital Cartel. I do make exceptions for bloodfeuds. I can't be sure but I think I have DC'd for bloodfeuds, as is my policy. As circumstance would have it, most of my BFs have had to be in the upward direction.

I don't object to bloodfeuds with a huge disparity in experience or recognition. I do, however, believe in proportional response. If it were me, and some guy had killed my 3 FE guy on a first random matchup, I would have bloodfeuded with a low KD and probably only once. Feed him a loss; honor is satisfied. But, Elephant chose to go another way, and pad his kill record at my expense. It's a dispropotionate response -- capital punishment for stepping on someone's toe -- and that's what doesn't pass the smell test.

That's ok. Like elephants, we too have long memories.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:41 am

Tripwire wrote:

LePentarque wrote:

Assurnasirbanipal wrote:

I am fully Delarquan on this issue. BF away. While I normally try not to kill, I do make exceptions and this might be one, especially if the warrior that died was one I cared about.

On the other side, if you are fearful of this type of vengeance, sit your warrior out. It is a manager's right to fight or not fight a warrior on a given turn. True, in DM 81, you are expected to sit the entire team out, but it is an option.

I also think that Recognition points mean little in terms of what a Down Challenge is. A down challenge to a warrior you've fought twice before and split is not a down challenge in my book. An UP challenge to a warrior you've beaten handily twice before is about as bad as your typical Challenger Adept to Adept down challenge.

Sitting out a warrior in dm81 is supposed to be forbidden... I dont know if RSI would do something, but we all are gentlemen, dont we ?

Yea, sitting out a warrior in 81 is a no-no

Like I said, in 81/83, sitting out a warrior means you sit your entire team.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:33 pm

I can see both sides of the debate, from the principles involved. I tend more towards Otto's assessment at the moment, but find me in a week and it may change.

My personal reactions to such incidents are not situational though, they are more personal. Do I like the manager, did I like the warrior, do we have a history? Negative responses to those questions would lead me to challenge as Elephant did, positives more in the other direction. Point being, I don't have a strict situational code that points me in one direction or another when it comes to my challenges, especially BFs. SELF-preservation and success trumps all other variables in the arena. My duty is to my team and to make it successful, not someone elses. I know that doesn't jive with the team concept that many people like to adapt, but this isn't a team sport (81 anyway, alliances and TW excluded).

Manager makes the best point about none of us being ethically pure in this game because we all have little quarks and ideas that don't exactly sit well with other managers whether it be down challenging by FE or recognition, sitting warriors out, collusion, etc. That is all right I think and makes the game interesting.

However, such advice comes with a caveat, you can play how you wish, but don't expect everyone to react positively to it. Play the way that makes you happy and fulfilled, but know that you will certainly make friends and enemies on the path. You really just have to ask yourself, Am I willing to deal with the consequences of my action? If the answer is yes, have at it, if no, then you need to reconsider your course.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:48 pm

Otto, I tried to reach out to you in private and open some dialogue about this. You've made the choice to go public.

Managerr wrote:

Otto X, while a nice guy, has historical ties to one of the most unapologetic downchallenge/killing/bullying alliances of all time.

Can't agree with Manager more here. I actually posted about Otto's avatar "FS" and now today it's suddenly gone. Otto you were a Slosher. You guys did this stuff all the time and now you want to cry foul? Not only did you guys do this sort of thing, but you were very in your face about it. I saw your "FS" avatar and I assumed you ran your guys accordingly. I didn't expect a slosher to get upset about this sort of thing. You guys used to welcome it. I understand people change and maybe you have?

Otto_X wrote:

I guess a lot of people are waiting for me to weigh in on this. I've been in Shadowspire for about two years since returning to the game, and I've adopted a policy of no DCs from my team, with respect to rec points. I haven't sought out kills nor have I shied from them, but my record speaks for itself. I actually have a lower kill-to-win ratio than Capital Cartel. I do make exceptions for bloodfeuds.

So it's ok for you to make exceptions for bloodfeuds and raise your KD but you want me to lower mine. Makes sense.

Otto_X wrote:

I don't object to bloodfeuds with a huge disparity in experience or recognition. I do, however, believe in proportional response. If it were me, and some guy had killed my 3 FE guy on a first random matchup, I would have bloodfeuded with a low KD and probably only once.

Maybe if Hot Brown was running a lower KD to begin with we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you don't want to be BF'd, don't kill other peoples warriors. If you would've told me in private that Hot Brown was good and you didn't want him to die, I would've made an exception.

Otto_X wrote:

But, Elephant chose to go another way, and pad his kill record at my expense.

Pad my kill record? You make it seem like getting kills is an easy thing that you can do on command. Trust me, if kills were that easy, Trip and I would've kill each others warriors every turn during our fued. If I kill Holy Shiitake next turn that will be padding my kill record? Because I'm going to try and want to know in advance how that kill will be view.

Otto_X wrote:

It's a dispropotionate response -- capital punishment for stepping on someone's toe -- and that's what doesn't pass the smell test.

Same response. Capital punishment for capital punishment. My guy died and I returned the favor. I guess here's where I have a problem: my guy gets killed and it's "stepping on toes" or my guy is a "putz" but your guy gets killed and I have to deal with all the drama queens crying foul. A paper warrior got killed and then another piece of paper died because of it. Get over it. Is this gladiator combat or the high school girl's locker room?

Otto_X wrote:

That's ok. Like elephants, we too have long memories.

Bring it. I enjoy challenges. This should be fun. Best of luck to you.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:18 pm

Looks like I've returned to the arena just in time. Things are heating up and turn 120 is shaping up to be a good one. I hope we get some good PA's or I'm gonna be severely disappointed. I kinda feel left out though, maybe I should kill someone next turn so I can get in on the fun.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:04 pm

Don't forget I still have one turn left to Bloodfued 'Vette as well. Twisted Evil

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 4:14 am

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 5:51 am

Hippo killed a guy from Capital Cartel right out of the gate (random match) and he came down from the Challenger Champs to the Initiates with a TP for his bloodfeud. He won, of course. He had a lot of options. Nobody died, and Hippo picked up a ton of skills.

In the Initiate class, Kathy of GFE killed Blind Tim in a random, and I contemplated sending down Pandera or Patroclus from the Chall. Champs/ Champion class... but I couldn't guarantee NOT killing Kathy, so I am waiting to see how my newbie (Ronin Zen) shapes up. He's mediocre, but I'll BF with him. No big loss if he dies, and it's better match. Cool

"BETTER" = "fits my personality better".

Something I learned from middle school is that human beings seem to be in a perpetual state of denial. Our "internal mirror" is cloudy and warped. It's difficult to see ourselves as others see us, which is probably closer to reality than what we would admit, because we rationalize everything we feel, think, and ultimately decide. The apostle Paul talks about looking into a dark mirror and then purposely turning around and forgetting what we saw.

Code of honor? Right vs wrong? In a game like this? (shrug) It's more a matter of how we perceive ourselves, and/or how we wish others to perceive us. Wink

You guys do what you think is best. I'll do the same. So will we all, I suspect. Rolling Eyes

As a side note, this situation highlights the best aspect of the forum; everyone has the opportunity to offer their opinions right away. We don't have to agree; however, it's nice to know where everyone stands. Smile

I'm saving some comments for the newsletter, though. Very Happy

ArchMaster Poster Joined: Mar 10, 2008 Posts: 1999

In my opinion we should all lay down our weapons, sing kumbaya, hold hands and hug trees.

Tree's need love too man!

Peace and love to all...