|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 30 post(s) |
Crellion
   |
Posted - 2006.07.19 20:55:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Jim Raynor
I think destroyers and frigates are important in this, they're just obviously the easiest and most expendable units on the field, but still I think if you think outside the box they're rather useful.
Of course, Jim... if they live past the first 90 seconds. 
I have some interesting points to make here Seleene but you ll excuse me if I make them after the tourney  for now allow me to just register my disagreement
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 11:26:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Crellion on 22/07/2006 11:35:30
Edited by: Crellion on 22/07/2006 11:26:57
I would just like to congratulate IAC on shamefully destroying the credibility of the tournament.
(To be clear I couldnt care less about betting and those that lost or won isk. However robbing TRUST of their chance of qualifying AND "ridiculing the game" at the same time I cant accept.)
My further congratulations to the gaging performance of the pundits who considered it no problem at all because IAC are their m8s.
Were it up to me I would subtract 3 points from IAC for that performance as well as reprimand the mentally challenged comments of the studio host and guests in some form.
Eve (IMO oc) is all about honour and I view now IAC as having very little of that left.
Flame away.
(By hosts I mean the two "permanent" ones I dont remember any out of line comments by Hammer on this. Guess he doesnt need to boost his ago like other peeps  )
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 13:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Crellion on 22/07/2006 13:13:47
Originally by: dalman
Originally by: Crellion
I would just like to congratulate IAC on shamefully destroying the credibility of the tournament.
Why is that?
There are rules in the tournament, and you play by the rules.
Simple as that.
Take a look at the other teams.
BoB for one, but also SMASH, and to a lesser degree IAC and SA, has come with tactics that for sure is not fun to watch, at all. But very effective with the stated rules.
I see no difference what so ever, in fielding a setup that is meant to lose to get a more favourable position in the later stages, and fielding a setup that is entirely based on that all 5 ships will survive for the stated timer, and not care at all about if they manage to kill 1 or 5 of the enemy ships (or even 0 and then win by ceptor duel).
Neither is a good show. But winning is what matters.
Go look at the World Cup. Out of the last 4, basicly 3 (Italy, France and Portugal) came with extremely boring 'defensive' setups that I'd rather would have seen crash out in the group stages. But no, they came with that cause it's the best setup, and in the end winning by the set rules are all that matters.
A boring tactic aimed at winning with 0.1 - 0 is not nice and enjoyable but valid and honest.
Staging a loss in such a blatant manner and then beeing cingratulated for that by your chronies is a disgrace.
So whats your point?
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 15:02:00 -
[4]
You can never convince anybody that playing with boring tactics to win is the same as selling a fight and arranging matches.
Look at International and National sports. The first wins fame and glory and the second gets your team relegated to serie C and criminal charges against individuals.
The World (Italy) and European (Greece) reigning football champions won by playing good defence. You want to place them in the same shelf as the sorry ass racketeers that got relegated in Italian club football.
Please some objectivity never hurt anybody.
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.22 16:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: dalman
There's a damn big difference in 'arranging matches' so that you win a match to complete something you couldn't have done on your own.
And to choose to lose yourself, because you have already performed on your own so that you now have the option to lose a match.
[/quote
So you can see a difference between the one who pays to win and the one who gets paid to lose eh?
You have much better... eyesight than I do 
Follow the example of Tyr. who doesnt try to explain things away rather...
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.23 11:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: dalman
against -v- that basicly folded and then an easy second match.
Would you care to explain what you mean by that?
|
Crellion
|
Posted - 2006.07.23 18:27:00 -
[7]
I would like to thank those that had a good word for the team of -v-. We are sorry that we werent able to do more.
What happened in the game with Atuk was something beyond our control and saddened us a lot. Next time we might actually have shield boosters on our ships just to be on the safe side  as it was our set ups (- a Basilisk) were a bit too passive to be succesful
I would like to wish good luck to the [5] and the other teams that continue.
|
|
|
| |
|