Vilgent Challenges

[slaphapy]

well where is djcid and whoever else watched the game to settle it... btw how did navaros find out about this whole challenge thing if he doesn't even visit this site (<-- this is based on how Arohk has been posting recently)

[Taqwa11]

What's the big deal, anyhow? Beating Nav is no great feat. He is a decent player, but he was never one of the best players. Has Emperor really sunk that low where beating a good player is the highlight of the forum? Oh, you just meant to tease poor Naive, I mean Nav, with this post? ;)

[slaphapy]

well, it's sort of a sequal to the thread called Vilgent Challenges

[Seal89999]

I have heard from many that Vilgent defeated nav. Plus Vilgent could own you anytime nav, most would agree! :)

[Gobalopper]

He quit, in Nav's world quiting does not equal a loss. ;)

[Navaros]

such nonsense in this thread. Vilgent never even ranked in QM, yet Nav beat hundreds of the very best players. Nav has proven himself more so than anyone else who has posted in this thread so far including Vilgent and Taqwall, who btw were "nobodies" in terms of any Emperor Tournaments. ROFL.

never even heard of Sard Elite on WOL so you're certainly in no way qualified to comment in this discussion. LOL

btw Gob that's not in "Nav's world", that's in "Westwood's World". you know that WW made the Under 3 Rule and it's an OFFICIAL Rule which is available to all players at all times.

[graveside]

why dont you name some of the very best players u beat then

[Gobalopper]

So why did you quit? What is the point of playing someone if you quit?

The option was created so that if there was a bad connection you could leave. It wasn't created so that people who knew they were going to lose because they couldn't compete against their opponent could duck out and claim they never lost.

[Navaros]

most are gone now and changed their nicks every month so it's hard to keep track of them, but the bottom line is that Nav's record was always remarkable and was close to the very top of the ATR ladder month after month. not something any of the "Tournamaent Nobodies" posting nonsense in this thread can claim

some of the best players Nav has beaten in QM are sarbaukar, sm0keshak aka elite47/gzakiller, cowhades and many others who use new multinicks every month to hide their true identity like the cowards they are in order so guys like Nav, who only ever used one nick on WOL, have a hard time claim Victory against the pansies who are too cowardly to play under their real identity even tho they are the same guys who Nav beat.

[zamboe]

Nav's world quiting does not equal a loss. ;)

I like that term "Nav's world", pretty accurate though.

And the under 3 rule was not made to duck. In Nav's worlds that's certanly a rule used in a completly different way it was made for. The under 3 rule was not made as an excuse for atreides campers.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Nav did rank in the top 20's some months of the QM... but if you check his record ... it was due to the fact that he ducked all the hard opponents and did newbie bashing 24-7.

If killing 100 newbies to pad up your score is the true mark of a "good" QM player then your nothing more than a joke.

The real champions were the ones who made it to number one and only had to play like 8 games (vs experts who were worth more points)... not the losers who had to defeat 345 newbies in 345 games ( who were worth less points)

hopefully everyone here is a veteran and knows exactly what i am speaking of.

[Gobalopper]

Nav what the hell do your old results have to do with why you quit today while playing Vilgent? Nothing!

[DjCiD]

I was unaware they even played together... where was I? ???

[Navaros]

Gob, you said the Under 3 Rule was in effect for the Vilgent Challenge.

Therefore, I have every right to take advantage of it and everyone who knows me through my years on WOL knows that I have NO hesitation about taking advantage of the Under 3 Rule whenever I see fit. For you to criticize me for a using a Rule which I am entitled to use is not fair at all.

Furthermore, I don't know what you're basing the claim on that Westwood was against quitting Under 3 due to rushing. I have never seen any Westwood employee state that it is wrong to quit due to rushers or that Westwood frowns upon doing so.

Vilgent rushed me 20 seconds into the game, and I quit 20 seconds into the game. To say Vilgent "Beat Me" is utterly ludicrous, especially since Under 3 is a VALID OFFICIAL RULE which I chose to utilize.

Why I brought up my old record is because Vilgent has never demonstrated any measurable set of skill in Emperor. I have. My skill has been proven by my track Record in the Tournaments. Vilgent's has not. I have only played Vilgent a couple of times in the past, once with Cerb as my ally and Netpemp as Vilgent's ally, and I won that game. I haven't seen a lot of how Vilgent plays other than to know he uses n00b rush tactics and thinks that is "strat". For me to have ranked so high in QM month after month required real skill in all aspects of Emperor gameplay, not just pressing the tier 1 unit icons constantly along with TT and PP. Doing that takes *No* skill whatsoever, yet this such thing is Vilgent's "brilliant strat" according to him. It remains to be seen that Vilgent can beat me and since he has no measureable track Record of success and I do, there is certainly no foundation whatsoever to say Vilgent is better than me and for him to make wild, absurd statements like he "owned" me is a totally unjustifiable fantasy on his part.

[Gobalopper]

It was in effect for the same reason Westwood told me they invented it, to allow people with bad connections to stop the game before it counted. I know they said it, so either I'm lying or I'm right. Which is it Nav?

And the other rule was that Dj was to oversee it, which never happened. Vilgent would have beat you, if you are going to quit everytime you play Vilgent what is the point of ever playing him?

[Navaros]

Gob, I think you are wrong because you are extrapolating what certain Westwood employees said about the Under 3 Rule to include things that were not actually in their words. That is, unless you were exposed to commentary totally different than what the rest of us have been. Though I think that the most likely case is, you are going by what Westwood employees have posted about it where stated that a *good reason for...* the Under 3 Rule was that you could get out of a laggy game. However, those words alone should not be extrapolated to mean that Westwood frowns upon using the Rule for other reasons too. I've seen Westwood post about the Rule and not once have I ever seen any Westwood employee explicitly state that using the Under 3 Rule to thwart rushers is wrong. If you have been told differently, explicitly, then I will stand corrected.

If Vilgent didn't want me to quit on him, he could have waited til after 3 minutes to get in my face. The thing with the Under 3 Rule is, it's only valid for the first 3 minutes. If Vilgent had the fortitude to try to face me at any point after 3 minutes, me quitting would result in my loss. Of course, Vilgent would have a hard time using his skill-less tier 1 unit rush on me if he did that, hence he might have to employ some *real* strategy in order to beat me; which is probably why he is reluctant to do so. But understand that the ball is just as much in Vilgent's court as it is in mine. If he wanted to claim a real Victory against me, then all he had to do was wait 3 minutes and if his superior skills beat me from that point on, so be it.

Gob, you asked why I quit under 3 even in ATR vs ATR, it's because I don't like having to conform to one exact BO. I find that dull and boring and I don't think it makes for a good "strategy" game to be forced to conform to one exact BO and one string of tier 1 units that are identical to my opponents' just because they are the only possible way to compete in the very early game. The Under 3 Rule adds a vast depth to Emperor gameplay and any honest QM veteran will surely attest to that.

btw I wanted Dj to be there but Vilgent told me: "i am leaving Emperor forever soon, these are my last few games, it's now or never!" and he insisted we play right then and there without dj. so i had the goodwill to accomodate his request even tho i didn't have to.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Gob is correct... the westwood employees clearly stated what the 3 minute rule was intended for. It is navaros who is extrapolating the meaining... he is actually adding more to the definition.. more than what the westwood employees intended.

Navaros states that because the westwood employees didnt state that the 3-minute rule wasnt for thwarting rushers ..then it must be ok. This is wrong.. read below to discover why...

It is impossible for them to make a one-mile long list of everything the rule *shouldnt* be used for...... so instead the simple thing is to just tell you what the rule *IS* for.

It is for cancelling a laggy game.. nothing more.

[Gobalopper]

Exactly why would Westwood create a rule that allowed people to leave games because they thought they were going to lose? How is that useful in a tournament ladder where the best should be those that can win under any conditions.

Granted the rule may allow you to quit under 3 minutes if you feel like it but that was never the intention. You are the one "extrapolating" here not me.

[anklbter8]

The under 3 min rule existed in Westwoods world as you had stated earlier. Since Westwood no longer exists then all rules are null and void. Also you were playing in a deathmatch game with QM settings. In deathmatch games the 3 min rule doesn't apply. Dj also did not judge which was supposed to be part of the challange. Since you did not coordinate with him then you pressing accept (at the game screen) means you also accept a change in the original plan. Why then would the 3 min rule have to apply?

Now you have admitted that basically you played Vilgent and took a loss by ducking out of the game. Yes, I know in your books its not a loss. Anyways, congrats once again Vilgent.

[ken124578]

Gobalopper, what are you going to do?

Give him his navaros account back? (he gave me plenty of evidence that he is navaros) or close this thread as it's going to turn into a flamewar and leave this case without giving him his old account back?

[Gobalopper]

He can already use his old account. It was Nav's decision to play Vilgent before using it again.

[Navaros]

all QM rules are and always be valid so long as WOL is up. All Emperor Tournament games were played over WOL and the Under 3 Rule is a WOL rule so until such time is WOL is no more, every rule applies

Gob, there are some great reasons why Westwood would make an Under 3 Rule that have nothing to do with lag, in this thread:

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=7;action=display;threadid=7826;start=msg115939#msg115939

you see, I don't like having to always get a Factory first and build tons of tier 1 units for the first 10 minutes of the game in order to be able to fight off my enemy who is doing the exact same thing in the exact same order. that's silly, that's babysish, and that undermines the whole concept of "strategy". although almost all Emperor players do it, the fact of the matter is that it takes NO skill at all to mass tier 1 units and press TT or PP. in addition to that, the starting units of Atreides are inherently weaker than the starting units of any other House therefore Atreides has a huge early-game disadvantage by default. Westwood knew this.

I don't think I am extrapolating because I saw Dev post about it in a thread, and the majority of the questions ( a massive multitude, at that) in the thread were: "is it 'OKAY' to quit under 3 to stop rushers?" and rather than respond to the huge volume of questions he got about that, he ignored them all and instead made a post in which he said something like:

"one thing that the Rule is good for is, sometimes I enter a game and it's just slow as molasses... so I can quit without taking a loss".

by his (and other WW employees) refusal/willful neglection to address the issue of rushing and how it relates to the Under 3 Rule means to me that it is reasonable to conclude that Westwood doesn't see anything wrong with using Under 3 to stop rushers.

in addition, computer worms would cause a huge number of unfair losses if there was no Under 3 Rule. in the late game, for the most part, computer worms end up being an annoyance at best and throw a small monkey wrench into your plans --- but they'd never be the determining factor as to who "Wins". the better player would still Win irrespective of computer worms harrassing him. but on QM settings, your starting units are *everything*. lose them Under 3, and you're done-for vs. a rusher, guranteed. it is highly common for computer worms to eat all of one player's starting units very early on which I'm sure Westwood is not proud about; computer worms must have been designed with mid-late game implementation in mind.

as well, it should be noted that the majority of the people who slam me for advocating using the Under 3 Rule whenever necessary are doing so because they have no real skill at Emperor whatsoever and stand no possible chance in a game the requires real thought, strategy and Micro - the things that make RTS worthwhile. most Emperor players are "one strat wonders": all they know how to do is press the tier 1 icon buttons and TT/PP incessantly, then when they "Win" as a result of the fact that Buzzsaws are inherently wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy the heck stronger then sandbikes (or whatever the case may be) they get the false delusion that: "wow, I am a great Emperor player!"

this is the main reason why i despise rushers who tell me the Under 3 Rule is not valid, and refuse to conform my BO to accomodate them. I know all facets of Emperor gameplay, and the fact that I won't defile myself by becoming a tier 1-unit-masser who employs zero real skill or strategy in order to "compete" in the early-game does not make me a bad player. Rushers who can not Win unless they are able to exploit the early game imbalances of inherently weaker units are the truly horrible Emperor players, and no doubt you will see a great majority gang up on me for taking this attitude because the fact is most of the people who play Emperor fall into this exact boat and resent me for outlining the situation realistically.

[Gobalopper]

When you play someone and you know they are going to rush you build whatever it takes to counter it, you don't quit and call them an asshole. Why even bother playing Vilgent when you already knew that is how he plays?

Last I checked there wasn't a rule saying players can't rush yet you seem to think that people doing it don't play the game properly. Which leaves me to ask, who made you king of Emperor? Players can use whatever strategy they want. If you don't want to counter it, fine, but don't start complaining that no one else is good because they use a strategy that wins them games. Thats the whole point of playing on a ladder, you use the method that works best.

If all you want to do is play a slow game without rushes don't play competitively!

[Navaros]

Gob,

You are right with alot of what you said. I don't think rushing strats are inherently bad. Those who know me from QM know that I have been known to use winning rush strats on occasion.

However, I resent being told "you suck" because I quit Under 3. I have ranked on the top 5 of the ATR Ladder over a half-dozen times, back when there were *real* players in the Tournament such as ACE. I am often told "I suck" by people who have never played in the Emperor Tournaments much less ranked in them, people who's Emperor knowledge, experience, and skill is downright laughable in comparison to mine. People saying "I suck" for quitting under 3 who do not even have the slighest conception of all the hard-fought Tournament Victories I've hammered out against elite players and the brilliance of micro and strat I was required to execute to have Won those games. For people like that to insult me for advocating Under 3 is deeply offensive, and hence I naturally have a strong aversion about this topic.

Gob, you are right that people are free to employ whatever strat they want. There is no rule against rushing. That is true. On the other hand, there is also no rule against quitting under 3 to invalidate what a rusher has done. There *is* a Rule that states quitting Under 3 means the game doesn't count. That rule does not discriminate. Just as rushers are free and within their rights to rush me Under 3 if they so choose, I am also free and within my rights to utilize the Under 3 Rule if I so choose. Rushing and the Under 3 Rule are all at the players' discretion.

I believe in fairness, and as a good RTS player I take the view that it is wise to do anything within the Rules in order to Win. Quitting Under 3 is a Rule that allows me freedom and flexibility with what buildings and units I make: it works to my advantage and it's Legal, so for me to not use it as it fits so well into my playing style, would make me a bad RTS player.

Lastly, it is not possible to counter the rushes of elite players of other Houses as Atreides due to the fact that Atreides is fundamentally weaker than the other Houses at the start. The science of balancing an RTS game is a very complex one, and Emperor is balanced very well in Mid-Late game. But one of the shortcomings of having a game with extremely unique units for every House, as Emperor has, is that it's not balanced at all stages of the game due to certain early-game units being far stronger by default. If there are only 3 units on the map for each person, and one person's 3 units happen to be inherenetly stronger than the other's, the person with the 3 stronger units Wins automatically. To me, that is not Strategy and undermines the very idea of Strategy. In a strategic contest, it is Micro and diversity of strat that should determine the Winner of an RTS: not "my starting units happen to be stronger than yours, so it doesn't matter *how* good your Micro is, my units will now kill yours automatically and I Win!"

My quitting Under 3 strategies Win games too. I force players to beat me with diversity of strat and better Micro than me. If they don't have that, they lose to me because I have more skill. There are a few guys (very few tho) who never need to rush me and never do, but they will still beat me 100% of the time. This is what makes the Under 3 Rule so Perfect. It negates all the tier 1 imbalances of Emperor and ensures that the only determining factor in who Wins is the one with better Micro and diversity of strat. Without the Under 3 Rule, the Winner is often determined soley by which tier 1 units happen to be stronger.

[GUNWOUNDS]

This tier 1 unit blabber is getting pounded like a dead horse ad naseum......

I will agree that the buzzsaws are extremely tough......

but thats why ATREIDES has those strong freaking turrets,,,,

you PUT YOUR BIKES BY YOUR TURRETS and they are SAFE

then DEPLOY SOME KINDJAL and the buzzsaws DONT STAND A CHANCE!!

the fact that navaros doesnt know how to stop a buzzsaw rush shows that he has no idea of the units strengths and weaknesses.

Navaros states that Thoxen trained him..

well tons of people RUSHED Thoxen... WHY didnt he die??

cause he deployed kindjal.. made sandbikes.. mongeese minos.. he mixed it up.... and retreated back to his turrets if need be... I NEVER SAW THOXEN QUIT UNDER 3 minutes!

this is totally ridiculous !!! Everyone knows that Atreides can be very hard to rush due to the tough ass turrets they have.

This whole topic is ridiculous. I have seen vilgent and elite47 rush with atreides and stomp ordos and hark into the ground!!

It is all about the players not the units. Emperor has been balanced perfect in my opinion.

People are being mislead by navaros into thinking atreides is some gimped up house and it is not. They also are being mislead that he has skill or knowledge.

Ken as well as myself have both played with navaros as his ally. And we both have come to the same conclusion.. he does not help out in the attacks.. he makes his partners do all the work.. he is lazy.. he turtles...you name it.. he is the worst possible player...and if he gets attacked he will scream bloody murder for help.. but will not help you.

And when he loses.. he always blames it on "oh i am so rusty" instead of the truth which is he doesnt know what the hell he is doing. It is so wrong for a new player to come here and read this and think that emperor is some unbalanced game when it is just about as perfect as u can get.