Helix wrote:
You could always use your ICE edit....
H
H
Yeah that would be a good stalemate edit.
| www.ClassicTW.com https://mail.black-squirrel.com/ |
|
| Big D's Smack Thread https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=31329 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Helix [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Big D's Smack Thread |
Enough Said... You could always use your ICE edit.... H |
|
| Author: | Kewlbreeze [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
Helix wrote: You could always use your ICE edit.... H Yeah that would be a good stalemate edit.
|
|
| Author: | Big D [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
Helix wrote: You could always use your ICE edit.... H Edit: Thank you, but I made a new edit that is doing very well as a building game with no unenforcable rules or server side scripts present. |
|
| Author: | Big D [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
HiTechRedneck wrote: Thanks again Big D. Running the ZTM now. No problem. Have fun. If you see any problems let me know. |
|
| Author: | booger [ Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
Big D wrote: Helix wrote: You could always use your ICE edit.... H Doesn't this remark go in the smack talk forum? As my banner proves, the ICE edit didn't end up as a stalemate. this is a good argument for a smack forum right here. id like to hear how that tourney went from the people who played it- but if they mention anything adversarial its a no go. tho if i recall correctly, wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? thats not me smacking, i know i remember seeing that... |
|
| Author: | Big D [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
booger wrote: Big D wrote: Helix wrote: You could always use your ICE edit.... H Doesn't this remark go in the smack talk forum? As my banner proves, the ICE edit didn't end up as a stalemate. this is a good argument for a smack forum right here. id like to hear how that tourney went from the people who played it- but if they mention anything adversarial its a no go. tho if i recall correctly, wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? thats not me smacking, i know i remember seeing that... Ground Zero clearly won by having the over half the assets, less deaths, and more kills than any other corp. The only reason that we didn't take them out is because they gridded enough to keep evac scripts running until the end of the game. So any statements previous to the game are null and void considering that they refused to stand and fight. You can't kill what you can't catch. The bottom line is "Ground Zero was and is the CHAMPIONS of the ICE tourney." |
|
| Author: | T0yman [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
booger wrote: wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? Yes but they will call this smack to avoid being called out. As long as the discussion is kept civil then it just sounds like a good Open Discussion Topic. |
|
| Author: | Big D [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
T0yman wrote: booger wrote: wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? Yes but they will call this smack to avoid being called out. As long as the discussion is kept civil then it just sounds like a good Open Discussion Topic. There really is no topic. The topic has been resolved. The final factor being that "Ground Zero won ICE" |
|
| Author: | T0yman [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
Big D wrote: T0yman wrote: booger wrote: wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? Yes but they will call this smack to avoid being called out. As long as the discussion is kept civil then it just sounds like a good Open Discussion Topic. How does this related to building games again? Stay on the topic at hand or start another thread. No.... answer the question that was ask and quit dodging the obvious. |
|
| Author: | booger [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Actual Building Game??? |
Big D wrote: booger wrote: Big D wrote: Helix wrote: You could always use your ICE edit.... H Doesn't this remark go in the smack talk forum? As my banner proves, the ICE edit didn't end up as a stalemate. this is a good argument for a smack forum right here. id like to hear how that tourney went from the people who played it- but if they mention anything adversarial its a no go. tho if i recall correctly, wasnt GZ going to cby if it came down to points? thats not me smacking, i know i remember seeing that... Please do not derail this thread. This thread is about builder games. If you wish to start another thread on a seperate topic do so, and i will ignore it. to be honest i dont consider this a derail, and in the interest of proof i offer this explanation- the topic is builder games. as i see it a builder game is one where the goal isnt to annihilate people but to build. the ice tourney edit was mentioned as a possibility- and since the guy who wrote it couldnt 'win' it(like i said i know it wasnt supposed to stalemate, and i know GZ was gonna cby) it would seem to fit the bill. when you consider that members of two of the three corps who played have suggested it as a builder edit? now, you can take it however you want. 'stay on topic', whatever. but if we look in the draft thread we see- Big D wrote: So players don't have the right to ask questions? and the question was asked why not use the ice tourney edit. how is that smack? wouldnt a simple answer like 'good idea' or 'i dont think so' have stopped a supposed thread derail? |
|
| Author: | Farley [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This has nothing to do with a tournament |
Boog, to answer your question then. It was stated that if there was no OBVIOUS winner, that GZ would cby. 1st, there was a clear and obvious leader who later became the winner by tourney rules as soon as 30 days (or less) into the tourney. This was when GZ had, and maintained 50% or above game assets. Therefor, there was a clear winner. 2nd. This was stated before I joined GZ. Being that I had no intent to CBY for any reason, I would have still been around to claim the a fore mentioned obvious win for our corp. The others CBY'ing would, at this point, be a mute point. I hope that clarifies things. |
|
| Author: | T0yman [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This has nothing to do with a tournament |
Big D wrote: Ground Zero will be playing the game to destroy all other corps. If at the end of the game we haven't done that, on day 60 our entire corp will cby. We don't want a win by points. That should relieve some issues and concerns. Also I would prefer that only real players and real corps sign up for this game. Thank you. Big D wrote: Ground Zero corp will not be even considering a win by time limit. If at the end of the 60 day time limit we haven't clearly won, we will blow all our planets, ships, cash, and we will cby so that no one gets any points from our corp. We have no interest in winning this game by anything other than fair means and the "eliminate all" method. If we don't win, then we will consider it good practice for our new permacorp. Thanks again. There are more but we all know Big D so we can just leave it at that. |
|
| Author: | Farley [ Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This has nothing to do with a tournament |
well, the 'real player' clause negated the 1st contract,(leaving out names by design as not to turn into smack) and I already explained the 2nd...laff. and again, twas before I joined the corp. so, I am not bound by any of it. |
|
| Author: | Big D [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This has nothing to do with a tournament |
Farley wrote: well, the 'real player' clause negated the 1st contract,(leaving out names by design as not to turn into smack) and I already explained the 2nd...laff. and again, twas before I joined the corp. so, I am not bound by any of it. Both of those statements are null and void considering the type of play that was chosen in that tournament. I will say that both of the other two corps were very good at running evac scripts and avoiding us. This puts me in the mind of a fed safe player that sits in federation space with 99 fighters on his ship and says "You didn't win because you can't kill me." laff |
|
| Author: | booger [ Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: This has nothing to do with a tournament |
Farley wrote: Boog, to answer your question then. It was stated that if there was no OBVIOUS winner, that GZ would cby. 1st, there was a clear and obvious leader who later became the winner by tourney rules as soon as 30 days (or less) into the tourney. This was when GZ had, and maintained 50% or above game assets. Therefor, there was a clear winner. 2nd. This was stated before I joined GZ. Being that I had no intent to CBY for any reason, I would have still been around to claim the a fore mentioned obvious win for our corp. The others CBY'ing would, at this point, be a mute point. I hope that clarifies things. well, while its nice to hear some of how the ice went down(thanx), this still doesnt answer whether or not that edit would be good for a builder. if one of three corps had a decided material advantage 30 days in and couldnt kill off the other two? seems to me that a couple tweaks (slow down the cits and whatnot) and it might make one. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|