1v1 pairings - revenge of the stats

[Ace Rimmer]

Ah, well if Pox can't play later (ladder matches take precedence ), I'd be willing to give it a go. It would have to wait until at least 9:00 pm GMT though, cause I've got to get some work done today.

[White--Rabbit]

No, rabbit I'm not going to lower myself to your level and answer your insults. In other words you think that your opinion/yourself are significant to me enough to make me lose my time. But proving something to a person whose opinion is of no importance to me is the last thing I'm going to do.

If it means nothing to u then why post a response at all????? Its ok. If you dont want to accept the challenge it ur choice but it does prove you are a chicken shit

[rus|Mike]

If it means nothing to u then why post a response at all????? Its ok. If you dont want to accept the challenge it ur choice but it does prove you are a chicken shit

You know, you challenging me look pretty much like a 10-year old boy challenging Mike Tyson for a boxing match I don't think that other Mike would have responded

[Tripper]

Geez, handbags, please, gentlemen!

To sum up: The subs under mexico strategy doesn't require technical skill - agreed

NA's silos are not always scoutable from the Pacific (mine always are ) but SA's are always scoutable from the Atlantic.

Doing so successfully may take some technical skill, although it certainly seems feasible (and rus|Mike has done it on numerous occasions)

I've failed twice (narrowly, and with conceding the pacific ), but I'm not that technically skilled - Ace, rus|Mike and Hyp are all better tacticians than me - so I would tend to believe rus|Mike when he says that he could win against the subs under mexico strategy.

But there's no need for quite so much trash talk - I'm sure WR will get his ladder chance at rus|Mike sooner or later

Laters guys, I'm off to play poker. I'll be playing void tomorrow evening (2000) if anyone wants a good laugh!

Cheers, Tripper

[White--Rabbit]

If it means nothing to u then why post a response at all????? Its ok. If you dont want to accept the challenge it ur choice but it does prove you are a chicken shit

You know, you challenging me look pretty much like a 10-year old boy challenging Mike Tyson for a boxing match I don't think that other Mike would have responded

Again more mikey excusses

[rus|Mike]

Well Rabbit I can suggest you a seria of matches with randomized territories... how many games? As many as you wish. If one of them will be SA vs NA then so be it but I'm not going to play this setup on purpose: it always requires too much concentration.

[Ace Rimmer]

Well Rabbit I can suggest you a seria of matches with randomized territories... how many games? As many as you wish. If one of them will be SA vs NA then so be it but I'm not going to play this setup on purpose: it always requires too much concentration.

Hehe, I give all my games the same amount of concentration, that is, as much as I can give each one individually. The only times I relax are when I play a non-ranked [DEMO] New Player.

[White--Rabbit]

Well Rabbit I can suggest you a seria of matches with randomized territories... how many games? As many as you wish. If one of them will be SA vs NA then so be it but I'm not going to play this setup on purpose: it always requires too much concentration.

Your post just proves what a complete dumbass you really are mikey and it also proves you are a little scared of loosing. All I wanted to do was to see if a inexperienced player could beat an experienced player in that setup. However; ill play you anytime with any configuration. And if I lose so be it.

[rus|Mike]

We can play our first game in about 3 min. Then 40 min brake and 1-2 more and then we'll see. If that plan is ggod for you. If not than I have a full day tomorrow.

[rus|Mike]

Here we go, the first game is played. Me Asia vs White Rabbit as Europe. Looked pretty ugly (guess on which side). Unfortunatelly rabbit decided to drop when I destroyed his silos. However for the benefit of the ranking system, I finished it alone (after some waiting on a pause surely).

http://dedcon.net/serverlogs/Duel/2008/ ... C_2008.zip

Looking forward to more games

[Blackbeard]

I've been thinking with 1v1 matches that 2 games should be played, and the aggregate scores should determine who is awarded the win/point.
eg: In the first game, random territories gives player A. Asia, and player B. Russia. Needless to say, Player A wins by a generous margin (say: 120 to 70).

Now, in the next game, territories are chosen, so that player A. this time gets Russia, and player B. gets Asia. The game is played and the scores are: 70 to 120. The result: we have a draw

I don't know whether or not all this has been debated in the past (I haven't bothered looking ), but of course, players would be awarded 1 point each for a draw, and 3 points for an outright win. (and in the event of a draw, their positions on the ladder wouldn't change ...oh dear, I haven't really thought this through ).

[v o i d]

I've been thinking with 1v1 matches that 2 games should be played, and the aggregate scores should determine who is awarded the win/point.
eg: In the first game, random territories gives player A. Asia, and player B. Russia. Needless to say, Player A wins by a generous margin (say: 120 to 70).

Now, in the next game, territories are chosen, so that player A. this time gets Russia, and player B. gets Asia. The game is played and the scores are: 70 to 120. The result: we have a draw

I don't know whether or not all this has been debated in the past (I haven't bothered looking ), but of course, players would be awarded 1 point each for a draw, and 3 points for an outright win. (and in the event of a draw, their positions on the ladder wouldn't change ...oh dear, I haven't really thought this through ).

Agreed; if you would play for money, the current system would not be appropriate. However, as this ladder is pretty much all about honors and having a good time, one can't really complain.

[rus|Mike]

Well nobody is strictly against it. Even "best out of three" (all randomized) thingy was discussed although it was never used. We all have a life and it's difficult to get a time organised even for a one game. No need to say that 2 games in a row can last up to 4 hours (or even more).

[v o i d]

Yeah, the current ladder system gets the job done. If you lose a match from time to time because of an unfavorable setup - who gives a shit. As said, no money on the line.

[Blackbeard]

Yes, I agree completely (/me goes back to collecting alluminium cans).
edit: though with 3 points for a win, you get a 1/3 extra points for playing just two games. Bargaintastic!