Ksak Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Agreed. I see these gamey vs. historical things and the logic wires get shorted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 21, 2001 Author Share Posted March 21, 2001 Originally posted by Ksak: Agreed. I see these gamey vs. historical things and the logic wires get shorted. Yes, I noticed the same thing. Suggesting people be offered a choice of ladders, to me equals MORE enjoyment of combat Mission. However I did notice this thread attracted the "Gamey Rants". So much so that Yobobo at Tournamenthouse stopped returning my e-mail on the subject. Someone had brought the suggestion to his attention before other then myself as well and he was interested and very supportive of the idea. However as I noted to him in my first e-mail on the subject “ I know a change makes no sense unless it is helpful to the site” I am not saying historical type OOB’s verses Powergamer play is right or wrong. Just saying a choice of ladders at one site would be a unique offering and enjoyable to many player’s. Since this post however I have received a couple rude e-mail’s from people at Thouse and rude comments in the chat room there. I dropped the idea and am waiting for another site to offer this feature in the future, until then Thouse is my first choice of ladder sites to use. I enjoy the system, some of the people and the ease of use the site offers. I also had the privilege of speaking with two of the higher ranked player’s (top five) at the Thouse. One said “I like the term Powergamer”, this player while known as an “Anything goes” type player and a very tough player to beat was also one of the more polite people I spoke with on the subject. Another said “I would like to play historical OOB’s here now and then but it seems hardly anyone does. Mostly the replies reflected the concept however that I had insulted somebody’s mother by offering the suggestion. Bruno, I did notice your style changed in the thread from smart-alec replies to constructive questions (which I forwarded to Yobobo), for this I thank you. Col_Deadmarsh; By the tone of your replies, at first I felt you still held a grudge form our first ladder game when you accused me of cheating. Since then however I have noticed that you reply rudely to many posts. [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Abbott, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I just went over to T-House to check my records and it says I have 3 wins and 4 losses. This is also what it says when you do a player search on me. Next to your name is my loss to you. So, maybe you could tell me what the hell you're talking about? Also, I am not an "officer" there. I used to help out with CC2 conducting interviews with players and such so when you say things like this and how I influence my rankings, it pisses me off. By the way, this is the 2nd or 3rd thread today where you've insulted me. I'm starting to think you're the one with the vendetta... ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 21, 2001 Author Share Posted March 21, 2001 Double post. [This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 03-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted March 21, 2001 Author Share Posted March 21, 2001 Originally posted by Abbott: Excuse me Col_ the game seems to be listed? Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-00 Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 This whole argument reminds me of the difficulty the courts had defining obscenity in the late 70s early 80s (dating myself here) To borrow from the courts--Gamey play/force structure is hard to define but "you know it when you see it." Additionally, like Harry Flint knew he was publishing obscene material (women in a meat grinder) the person using gamey techniques/forces knows he/she is using gamey techniques/forces. And neither will admit it. Harry for legal reasons, the gamey player for (?). Pulling my helmet on now and waiting for the SMG bum rush, backed by JadgIV/70s and massed AAA preceeded by jeep recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yobobo@tournamenthouse Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Sorry for that last no-show email Abbott. This server has been a large headache but is behind me now(fingers crossed) Also trying to get THE FAT CHAT ready to roll. I have been neglecting everyone not just you and I apologize I have had a few (50) ha emails on this subject. The way it looks is, if it was to be done it would have to be cut and dry. Some say just use puter pick units. This would be an easy rule. But allot of players say no to that. Or maybe just pre-made battles ready to download? All the small print in making something like this happen might kill it before it starts? I'm still not sure on all this at this time. I think the soon to be new chat will help in many ways. Players can go in and host a room and post the parameters on the info screen. (M.S. Zone type deal) Historical, meeting blah blah. You can view the info before joining the sub game room. This will help players pick and choose before committing to a game. No one will have to say "No thanks" They just wont join the room. Lets keep this topic going Hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Hi, I have been following this and I play the T House Ladder. I have sympathy with the views expressed by Abbot about games becoming Power Gaming experiences. I try to buy a balanced force and not to use crews as recon. I believe that you can not regulate against it and must in the end decide on who to play and who not to play. It is painful to play someone who is not playing on the same level as you and you always have the option to stop playing and give that person the game and move on. I don't think people will check Icons to see the style of player and I think the ones who have a different style to you would not necessarily not use the icon and masqarde as "a Historic" player. I used to play CC2 and what really pissed me off was the attitude of some of the players. I soon learnt to recognise them (in thier many different disguises) and just played those that were more noble in their approach. I think over time you will discover the more noble CM players and gravitate towards them. The ladder however by it's nature encourages competive play and those "gamey" players will tend to do better once they learn the ropes. Jason's article about the SMG squads is just one example about how certain units "rock" and will therefore be used again and again. I use the random computer picks and was not aware of the flaw in that until reading stuff here about how that can be abused. People can try and crack passwords and again that I am sure has been done. It can be passed off as intelligence but really all the ladder does is encourage some people to want to win at all costs. I do not think the changes suggested would be used by players and it is extra work for Yobobo which I am sure he would rather spend the time playing games. Just my view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted March 23, 2001 Share Posted March 23, 2001 Doesn't computer purchase give each side a pretty solid idea of what the other guy has? Seems like it would take a lot of suspense out of the game. Leonidas, in a word: no. If we play a PBEM game and each select computer purchase, I would have no better idea what I had, prior to starting the setup, than what you had. And, as the battle went forward, I would still be subject to the same FoW rules regarding your forces as if we both picked from a known list. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts