The TRON League

[Lord Pein]

The only problem is one which exists with all dogfighting[sic] that I'm aware of- if your opponent keeps running there is nothing you can do.

Sure there is. You get better, first. Then you chase them down, put a good box around them, and core dump their asses.

+1

Runners are never successful long-term, except against poor opponents.

-1

Sometimes the runner is the better opponent.

[Concord]

Also acceleration is pretty low so it's hard to chase them down if they do steps whilst running.

It's not a myth, it's an opinion. I found it was very hard to chase someone down.

you wrote two different things. The first you say "it's hard," while in the second you write, "I found it was very hard." The former asserts fact, the latter personal experience. In the first you also assert the fact that acceleration is low, which I explained as being untrue. Rather than correct what I wrote, which was right and did not need correction, you ought to have instead written something along the lines of, "Oh, I didn't know that. Regardless, I found it was very hard to chase someone down."

In the first, the fact you asserted was that the acceleration is low, which is untrue. Untruths presented as facts are myths. Thus what you wrote was a myth.

In the second you present an opinion, and one I agree with. I also find it hard.

[Phytotron]

Actually, I have played it, dariv. Comments stand. (By the way, a little hint: "Chasing" doesn't necessarily have to be done by trailing from behind. This isn't a race with a linear track, ya know.)

I will agree on one thing: Were it my server, I would swap the values for _SPEED and _ACCEL. But, of course, it's not my server; nor will I be participating in this thang. Dos centavos, all the same.

Runners are never successful long-term, except against poor opponents.

-1

Sometimes the runner is the better opponent.

Reading comprehension, logic. Think. Try again.

[dariv]

If I say "it's hard" then it's implicit that that's my opinion, since difficulty is subjective.... why are we even discussing this, can't you just accept my criticism?

[Concord]

I did accept it.

[Slov]

sounds like fun!

[Lord Pein]

Runners are never successful long-term, except against poor opponents.

-1

Sometimes the runner is the better opponent.

Reading comprehension, logic. Think. Try again.

No, I comprehend it just fine. I have far more experience in more game types than you ever will and saying that runners are never successful long-term (except against poor opponents) is not true. Play against me someday and I will show you.

[sinewav]

Haha. You're the poor opponent?

[Lord Pein]

Haha. You're the poor opponent?

Knowing when to run is a quality that a good player would have. Rambo style may work in some situations; but knowing when to stay away from your opponent is critical in some situations.

[INW]

Especially when you are playing in a euro server and you can;t tell where the other player is because the lagometer is so big. A good player would know to stay away from them

[Lackadaisical]

Someone who runs occasionally is hardly a runner though, everyone runs when they're in a disadvantageous position.
Someone who *always* chooses to run (and this is what I would call a 'runner') would become predictable, and thus lose in the long term.

[Lord Pein]

Someone who runs occasionally is hardly a runner though, everyone runs when they're in a disadvantageous position.
Someone who *always* chooses to run (and this is what I would call a 'runner') would become predictable, and thus lose in the long term.

I was thinking more in the scope of one round. It doesn't even make sense to run if you have the advantage. I would think that the only reason people run is because they think they are at a disadvantage in their current situation (if they know they have the advantage and they are choosing to run, I would argue that they aren't even trying to really play the game and are just being annoying deliberately).

[Lackadaisical]

Well there's a lot of situations where it's not really clear who has the advantage (mostly in close combat where theres sufficient latency to make you unable to react on the opponent). I always feel some situations are definitely like playing the prisoners dilemma, but instead of years in prison you have the choice to either:

Code: Select all

               |   p1 aggressive              | p1 passive
---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------------
p2 aggressive  |   hug (both die)             | p2 takes some of p1 space*
---------------+------------------------------+-----------------------------
p2 passive     |   p1 takes some of p2 space* | p3 takes space (or whatever)

* this doesn't actually has to be about space, but a small advantage in general (ie access to a tunnel)

In these situations the runner will always run (even though it's not clear if he's at an advantage or not) and will eventually get pushed in a corner.

This reminds me of one of concs first Defense Down! posts Also in the fact that my usage of the prisoners dilemma is also not correct.

[Concord]

a reminder to admins to update their servers according to the new files before saturday.
(hopefully this regular updating will only persist for a couple weeks until most have signed up, from now on it'll be regular, this week I just wanted to get something up for people to play early)

Code: Select all

RINCLUDE tronleague/tronleague_alternate-r2.cfg(http://crazy-tronners.com/resource/tronleague/tronleague_alternate.cfg)
RINCLUDE tronleague/tl_wk1_auth-r2.cfg(http://crazy-tronners.com/resource/tronleague/tl_wk1_auth.cfg)

[Phytotron]

No, I comprehend it just fine.

No, you don't. First of all, you "-1" ( ), but then essentially rephrased what I said. A runner is only successful long-term against a poor opponent. The opponent must be poorer than the runner for the runner to be successful long-term. That's a relative statement that logically implies that, most likely, the runner is better than that particular opponent, at least in this matchup.

Secondly, I stated "long-term," as in over time, not a single instance. Additionally, referring to someone a "runner" implies it as a consistent, dominant way of their play. But then you go on to talk about situational running within a single round, which clearly was not what I was describing. That's either poor reading comprehension, or you're trying to back out and reframe the argument.

Thirdly, I never suggested "rambo style" aggressiveness or recklessness—and don't play that way myself. In fact, I have a lot of success exploiting that tendency in other players.

I have far more experience in more game types than you ever will

Irrelevant willy-wagging.

Play against me someday and I will show you.

No thanks, I don't enjoy your company. Nor do I fall for meaningless macho challenges.