Rules question

How-to and support discussion for game play over internet.
User avatar
PK
Posts:88
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location:Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:50 am

Ok maybe default is to big word :)

As I remember even u Alex use old TSL now :D

PK
PK

User avatar
ALEX|D
Posts:306
Joined:Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:54 pm
Location:Germany NRW
Contact:

Postby ALEX|D » Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:07 am

As I remember even u Alex use old TSL now
Yes, now I know with who I can play TSL rule, who I need to ask for, and who is playing 1wait-rule.

Its just important that both play the same rule :wink:

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:27 pm

"Ok maybe default is to big word"
That was my point. I take similar view like alex. A default for ALL games is nonexistent. And there are more incidents like his trouble with brutal.

@ WD: they are too powerful, especially when you ban stealth techs. And they will be strong in future when you oppose the fix of further stealth techs.
""These wait-rounds are silly."

Wait option is critical in many battles. I dont see anything silly about wait rounds!"
Such commonplaces almost drive me mad. My Quote refers to the situations described by dirt-bag in the post before maybe you see his points now.
Of course THESE rounds exist where some players just look if the defender has a clue about beam and chance to hit dissipation.
If you really need such newbie-detection-wait-rounds or you need a laziness-test of your opponent (who already has shown his intention to wait in such situations) to win many critical battles....I am sorry for you.

In a 1v1 they seem acceptable when there is no lag. In a laggy 4way they are almost a crime.

User avatar
PK
Posts:88
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location:Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:23 am

"Of course THESE rounds exist where some players just look if the defender has a clue about beam and chance to hit dissipation.
If you really need such newbie-detection-wait-rounds or you need a laziness-test of your opponent (who already has shown his intention to wait in such situations) to win many critical battles....I am sorry for you. "

These rounds exists even in vet to vet battles, not only to check if enemy has idea about simple beam war but also to move some ships first then others when they arent moving first cos they are slower ones. Other cases of waiting exists also.

Now I can tolarate dissusion about topic and arguments to this topic. Words like "im am sorry for u" are like crossing the line of good behavior. As I remember u have also a quarell with Cyber. Having bad relations with two older kali players doesnt seems like a right thing. I also had my quarells with Cyber but we always wanted to talk about our problems. I tried to do this also with u, using small steps on kali but I didnt see much of ur good will. So I ll stop my efforts for now. We can see moo in different way but in your responds I see a shadow of wrath and anger on me. This is a bit too much to deal with.
PK

User avatar
Cybersaber
Posts:14
Joined:Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:36 pm
Contact:

Postby Cybersaber » Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:53 am

I can't speak for the old TSL, but I can tell you all that the One Wait for the Attacker rule comes not from me (though I wrote it), but from the Constitution that was ratified by 90% of the players on TEN, and then posted on the old Pixelexiq site when we all moved over to Kali after TEN closed down. It was much discussed by many vets when it was promulgated, and the consensus was that it was the best compromise out of many bad alternatives.

It's the rule I always play with. I have never seen any vets use multiple waits as the attacker. Perhaps they all know that I play the one wait rule. I had no idea that anyone was using an alternate rule. Note that I also specified the One Wait rule in my Strategy Guide for new players. There are times when I might prefer the TSL rule myself, but as dirt says, it sure slows down play! I still believe that one wait is a good compromise.

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:12 am

"These rounds exists even in vet to vet battles, not only to check if enemy has idea about simple beam war but also to move some ships first then others when they arent moving first cos they are slower ones. Other cases of waiting exists also."

Thx for the info. But, these waits are also used by *some* players if there is no tactical reason at all like mentioned by db. I know you treat (and called) us both (like) noobs, so can u explain for what reason an attacker doesnt move his ships at all and doesnt fire any shot, when he just attacks
with ONE design (no ini-movement issue at all) and the defender who had ini already has shown his intention to wait?
These are just newbie-detection-waits. And I have seen such situations.

"Words like "im am sorry for u" are like crossing the line of good behavior."

This statement was contained in a if-clause. I actually don't know if you use wait in such (above-mentioned) situation or not and I don't care.
And BTW i also see disrespect in your comments when you answer like "Wait option is critical in many battles." Just bathos each kali should know after his 5th game.

"As I remember u have also a quarell with Cyber."

Interesting "argument" when you really have nothing to add. But I guess Cyber wouldn't like to discuss the issue here. Actually, I would have NO PROBLEMS AT ALL in a etiquette-thread.

"Having bad relations with two older kali players doesnt seems like a right thing. I also had my quarells with Cyber but we always wanted to talk about our problems."

Just for info. I had email-conversation with him. I know his "point" and he knows mine. So what is your point?

"I tried to do this also with u, using small steps on kali but I didnt see much of ur good will. So I ll stop my efforts for now."

Thx.

"We can see moo in different way but in your responds I see a shadow of wrath and anger on me."

Well, I better don't tell here what for shadows I (and not just me) see permanently in your comments.

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:16 am

"I have never seen any vets use multiple waits as the attacker."

Thx. I had same impression. I just knew that PK and Dmitry always played different. But this fact should not define a different default.

User avatar
PK
Posts:88
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location:Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:56 am

" I know you treat (and called) us both (like) noobs,"

U know better what I think /I know you treat/? Interesting! I never wrote u or db are noobs. I never called u that way also. Writing about wait was my trying to defend idea of more then 1 wait. Not an idea to treat anyone like noob. I had to give some explanation of my point of view. It wasnt surely best explanation cos my english is limited - this is why i wrote about others reasons of waiting.

I admit i missunderstood ur wait rounds sense. But my goal was never to show disrespect!

"This statement was contained in a if-clause"

I would be carefull to write such words even behind "IF" shield. Its easy to manipulate with "IF" and then say "/if/ was there - i didnt mean anything wrong!"

"Interesting "argument" when you really have nothing to add."

I have something to add. This argument was for different purposes.

"Well, I better don't tell here what for shadows I (and not just me) see permanently in your comments."

Try me!
PK

User avatar
siron
Posts:504
Joined:Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:35 pm
Location:Hamburg
Contact:

Postby siron » Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:28 am

I would be carefull to write such words even behind "IF" shield.
It was compassion and it is interesting that such comment disturbs you. Especially regarding:
I never wrote u or db are noobs. I never called u that way also.
I have witnessed that you called db that way (kali chatserver). Just ask him. There was a further witness who couldnt believe your comments (at moment inactive but cyber has his phone number). He can confirm if u dont trust me or db.

And I swear here that you also called me that way. But we were alone on chatserver so there is no witness in this case.
I admit i missunderstood ur wait rounds sense. But my goal was never to show disrespect!
1 Missunderstanding, 2, 3, 4...10...can happen in a short time-span. Thats ok. But somewhere is a threshold and I think: Useless what I talk here, the other guy isnt really interested in my points. He doesnt listen. Disrespect. I will set him on ignore.

And you know that happened already last year.
U know better what I think /I know you treat/? Interesting!
How you act. Thats more important for me. Even if unintentionally...it disturbs me.

User avatar
PK
Posts:88
Joined:Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:47 pm
Location:Poland
Contact:

Postby PK » Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:14 pm

I was once arguing with db and in nerves I called him a noob. Now I remember. But I dont remember calling u that way. I think I appologized db for that. Our relations are good.

Ignore, fine by me - Siron deteled. My topic is over.
PK


Return to “Internet games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests