jon_j_rambo Posted September 28, 2003 Author Share Posted September 28, 2003 How about we vote to see if we should vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: How about we vote to see if we should vote? Thats what I was trying to do before, but Zapp posted saying it wouldn't count so the voting pretty much stopped right there. Comrade Trapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted September 28, 2003 Share Posted September 28, 2003 General Rambo I enjoy watching tennis though don't really follow it; interesting observations of the different personalities involved. The two tennis events I followed both involved gender issues. One was the show-biz gimmick of pairing a way over the hill Bobby Riggs against Billy Jean King in her prime, at the height of the woman's lib thing. So for a while there was a lot of talk about women being equal to men. But in the mid-seventies a run of the mill male tennis pro had a sex change operation and, as a female, started winning everything in sight! The other women complained it wasn't fair, that he turned she was too strong for them! So they wanted it both ways. [ September 28, 2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Originally posted by Terif: 2. You and other players used the carrier bug to kill Germany in LC with the LC gambit, not me. My motivation to play is to have fun in the game and during playing, not to kill the enemy with all means and get a victory. When playing SC, the way is important for me, not the goal ! You make it sound like WE used the carrier flaw and you did NOT??? That is soo NOT true. The opposite is more true. You were the first one to know about the interception flaws (since I found out and u stated u already knew) and developed certain strategies to exploit them. You surely won alot of games with it. Suffering 1-2 point less than your opponents turns the tide in close battles, eventually forcing the enemy air to withdraw. In many of my old games against you, I lost my Axis games due to losing an unbreakable air superiority to the allies, which enabled them to train carriers and eventually grow too strong. In some of the games, you started carrier BUG-striking me from London sea port already in the LC or France battle. In most of the games, you began using them after France, when Germany was busy in Norway and Africa. In one of my posted loss ( on SC World Championship ladder) I wrote "you always seem to get the first stike in LC" i.e carrier starts chopping axis air before axis can be strong enough to prevent it. You do not need to do the LC gambit to use interception FLAW (as u know). The old AAR and reports from the World Championship ladder are interesting to read. On many occasions there were comments that you won with super-carriers and stuff. Those reports ending quite abruptly after the FLAWS were removed in the latest patch (and the patch update). How come the report of super carriers almost disappeared after the final patch? Answer: Since the super carriers were related to the interception FLAW. Everyone used the interception flaws when they found out about it. The difference is, you kept it your secret and your strategy game after game and did not think it was GAMEY. The carrier thing was deceisive in battles for air supremacy. A carrier taking 1 point (due to sea port interception flaw) instead of 3 points sums up over the game and enabled the carrier to grow strong and be experienced. In many of the old games (when only you knew about the interception flaws), you did slick moves and got the air superiority almost every games since you knew about the FLAW. When the patch came out, everyone expected that the interception flaw was gone. However, the carriers vs air fleet battles were still using the flawed system. You managed to win some games with that FLAW too. When I got suspicious about the carrier thing, I asked you. You confirmed it, so YOU ALREADY KNEW. I posted it on the forum, revealing it to the world. So when u say you played for fun, not wanting to kill the enemy with all means it is NOT true. Finding out well hidden flaws/bugs and exploiting them to win seems like dead serious competition to me. When u talk about that you did not want to write a 1000 pages manual I do not see the relevance. How can u even pretend not knowing that there is difference between bugs/flaws, tactics and rules. Bugs/Flaws are the most important stuff to tell the players and the game developer (Hubert), IS NOT THAT CLEAR? I am sorry Terif, a players disregarding sportsmanship is a strong indication of trying to win at all cost NOT an indication of someone "playing just for fun". [ September 29, 2003, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Zapp Is there gonna be a vote or not, as of right now on the thread I made, the vote is 0 in favor and 4 opposed. If there was an offical vote I'm sure more people would bother taking the time to vote. If this isn't put to a vote, there is gonna be some major problems in the near future. The lack of a vote will and currently is degrading the integrity of Z-League. This has nothing to do with Terif. Comrade Trapp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Comrade Trapp. No, there is no voting planned (AT THIS POINT). Yes, the continued discussion can/is? hurting the Z-League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Zappsweden No, there is no voting planned (AT THIS POINT). All I'm going to say is that I'm disappointed in your decision. I don't see what your trying to prove by refusing to put it to a vote, but I see we're not going to come to terms on this so I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion. Please don't take any part of this argument personally, I respect you, I just strongly disagree with your decision here. Sincerely, Comrade Trapp [ September 28, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Comrade Trapp ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Rambo!!! I had to comment on this, facts are the facts. For is 'era' Johnny with Wooden and metal warriors wasn't as good as Connors: Lifetime Career Titles 1. John Scott Connors 109 2. Ivan Lendl 94 3. John MCenroe 77 Sampras last I check was the only man to equal Ken Rosewall. For Grand Slam Champions, as age and quantity. The boy is a natural in game. For an ex-tennis player myself of 17 years... Greatest Hacker at the Monterey Tennis Scene Club the only 10 year old to beat every man that walked in and I saw Ivan personally... Sampras was born on a Court Mac, was good for his era, but he was quickly outclassed by faster service, true athlete's that Lendl did to tennis, as well as the a changing era of dedication. Mac, had to make his mark at 25, when a tennis player is at his 'peak' we only last till about 30 It's sad, I was the biggest Connors fan myself. The problem with tennis since the 90s is that it's got no Heroes and is undertelevised, but in other Countries still going very strong. Liam the guy who beat all Stan Smith's buddies Clients with the biggest forehand at 86lbs in the World [ October 01, 2003, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Liam ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts