Distopia: I use pepper to shoot diagonally when I am under seeker and someone camps without ammo to get it.
WW: bad placement of PU if it's gonna be a Fireball PU.
AYB: when you spawn at right side of level, at right base, if you go up, you can chase with pepper before getting RF PU. If you're not at that side, you can chase with RF. It's already some advantage. Now, if you allow fireball there it will make even more advantage to RF's side. You don't have anything to spam so fast when you spawn at right side of level.
SILWI: I use it to shoot diagonally, especially at bases. Most knows that it's my favorite level for 3v3, and those know that I use a lot of pepper there when I D/S/R.
Zaitox: to be honest, I don't play there very often, won't talk anything about it.
Atom Heart: ^
NBlast: ^^
This level is untitled: ^^^
I think there are enough arguments to make a proper decision: allow fireball, but pepper stays as default, as it used to be.
Right, I'm gonna put a detailed analysis behind my vote, possibly just to help me decide, or you guys, and also I like writing essays.
So in simple terms, what is the fireball gun, what does it do? Well, according to my small testing, it's a fast gun, that can also shoot rapidly upwards with quite good reach, not as fast as gun8 though. Also, it shoots through destruct scenery and powerups, meaning the shot can hit multiple objects. However when powered up, this changes, and it practically becomes the blaster powerup, except without unlimited ammo. So losing gun8, means we might lose chasing capabilities (in cases where fireball is powered in various levels which I'll go over later), however it means we might have new tactics available in the levels. Gun8 wasn't really used much, and fireball might give a noticable change to the gameplay. So let's analyse the levels we currently play to help us get a better view of how it will affect?
Semi: No gun8, no difference. JE: Some gun8 and no powerup, upon testing it a bit, it looks like there won't be much of a gameplay difference since there aren't many places to tactically shoot the fireball up, and gun8 wasn't really used other than for chasing at the top, which fireball can do too. No real difference. BBlair: No gun8, no difference. BBSwing: No gun8, no difference. GW: Gun8 near bases, but no powerup. This means we have a new tactic in this level (similar to guarding by shooting bouncers upwards in various sections of the slopey areas of the level). Also, there are no real chasing corridors for gun8 to really have been useful here, so I believe fireball greatly enhances gameplay in this level. Epitome: Some gun8, no powerup again. Quite a few tactics made possible with this by shooting upwards again. It adds decent combat capabilities to the horizontal sections of the level as opposed to gun8. Enhances gameplay again in my opinion. Distopia: Some gun8, and the powerup. This level can and will be quite altered in gameplay from the powerup. There aren't many areas to shoot up, but notably horizontal guarding around the seeker powerup and bouncer powerup might be made easier if lacking seekers. Chasing along the top of the level isn't as potent with fireball instead of gun8. Adding the powerup also, gives effectively limited shots of powered blaster. Adding a third powerup to this level might change things. Fireball powerup isn't necessarily strong in this situation though, since it's against two much more superpowered powerups being seeker and bouncer. It does affect this level a lot, however not too drastically. I do think it's not a very good enhancement to the gameplay though and could be avoided in this level. Wicked Wood: No gun8, but the powerup next to the carrot. In this level, it's pretty much just a limited blaster powerup given that there is no actual gun8 ammo at all. I've always thought this level was about supposedly controlling the powerups, giving a fourth powerup to control might change the dynamic, but not in a way I'd care about because the powerups that it is against are already much more powerful than fireball. I don't really have an opinion on how it changes this level. Gauntlet: No gun8, no difference. Super: No gun8, no difference. All Your Base: Some gun8, and the powerup; I don't really like the change here. I am a huge fan of chasing across the top of the level with gun8, and there aren't many enhancing features to the gameplay with fireball in this level: not to mention it changes the nature of it being a level with two powerups to one with three! It does remove the chasing with gun8 element if powered up, but I guess you can still use RF, it's just something I didn't do in the past. Perhaps it's not really a bad thing, I just don't really care for it here. Diamondus Warzone: No gun8, no difference. SBv2: No gun8, no difference. SILWI: Some gun8, no powerup. Vertical guarding with fireball becomes more prevalently possible in both bases here, but no real changes to the gameplay otherwise, maybe shooting on bases will be different a bit, but not drastically. Enhancement to gameplay imo. COTS: No gun8, no difference. Zaitox: Some gun8, no powerup. The differences are minimal, but do allow for easier camping at the base, but nothing that wasn't possible with seekers already. Gun8 wasn't really used for chasing here, so really little difference here. DoS: No gun8, no difference. Atom Heart: Some gun8, no powerup. The uses here are very obvious and aren't worth explaining, but I do like it a lot for this level. It makes areas somewhat more campy, in a way that I do like. NBlast: Some gun8, no powerup, the gun isn't in high amounts in this level, meaning it probably won't be used much. No notable difference here. Frontier Falls: No gun8, no difference. Crystalline: No gun8, no difference. Trigelateral: No gun8, no difference. TCSv3: No gun8, no difference. This level is untitled: Some gun8, no powerup. No real difference to gameplay, maybe easier to block off some narrow vertical passageways but no real difference.
So all in all, what does fireball do for us? It changes some of the levels a bit in very good ways, such as GW, and in some levels it doesn't really do much. Personally I think it could be fun to allow in games, though I wouldn't really care if it wasn't there, till we start designing newer levels around the powerup where it may be more useful. For now, I'd say do add it though, as it enhances gameplay in several levels.
What else? Well, not many of you guys really used the old gun8 anyway, so maybe it is for the better. Some may argue it 'changes the game' meaning the best players can't be the best anymore. Well, that's not really what makes you the best players, I think better players could adapt to such a 'change' and therefore I think it's a good choice to keep the fireball over the old gun8. Thank you and goodbye!
You're trying to change gameplay in most of levels, especially in WW, JE and AYB. Everyone will camp at pepper in WW, what makes getting C very hard.
If you allow it by default, I suggest you to edit levels and place more/less pepper ammo and move PU somewhere else - what will change the gameplay again.
I'd say we should use fireball as the default choice, with the possibility of using regular pepper if the teams agree. Fireball is a much better weapon and would be an excellent gameplay addition.
In that case, I think /strongpowerups should stay off. Fireball would deal two damage when powered up by default, but powered up electroblaster could prove to be rather overpowered.
Unlike pepper spray and electro-blaster, fireball always does 2 hearts of damage when powered up. As such, since you seem to be ready to change gameplay of levels, another question that should be asked is whether '/strongpowerups on' should or can be used.
I haven't had time to properly play around with the fireball's physics and see how it could meaningfully affect gameplay, but my gut feeling is that since pepper's physics are quite unique and can be applicable depending on the level design, it should be pepper default with fireball allowed on specified levels. Perhaps any level with pepper spray ammo should be individually discussed over whether it should have fireball allowed or not?
For a start I'd have to say AYB would have to keep pepper spray entirely, as its fast movement and long reach are extremely helpful in the long corridors design the level has. As for Distopia, the spread of the RFs probably works better for the open design, so fireball could be permitted (and possibly encouraged).
King: Just to make things clear to you, since judging from your overnight replies, you might not have understood completely what I meant when we talked here and on skype:
You can criticize whoever you want to here, but you have to do it in a somewhat civilized manner. It's also nice if you address people clearly.
Oh really? shuttup? Im not going to take crap or bullshit from this guy just becuz veg is his "clanmate".If you want to end a flamewar then dont say anything offesnive. About spamming on forums. Untill your pathetic meddling, i posted only one comment, so dont speak about bullshit about "spamming".
rewrite ->
You want to silence me? I'm not going to stand for this just because Veg is your clanmate, Gry. If you want to end a flamewar, then don't say anything offensive. As far as spamming on the forums is concerned, I only posted on comment before you started meddling, so don't speak nonsense about "spamming".
That is true, its hard to take someone seriously if he's posting insults, i was pretty pissed off and i react easilly.
Quote:
Keep in mind however there were a lot of reports of your annoying CTO's exactly when enemy scores.
There were?
yes they were.Dont have the chatlogs however cuz im i have better things to do than save chatlogs and w8 for the moment the stick it in someone's face.
Quote:
1. Veg told you to stop airing him in a joking manner (that's how he tells me he intended it), but imo he failed completely at that, making it sound like you always air people and that's why you get any kills at all:
Quote:
[17:04:25] Veg4SpR[CC]: king: airhit production facility 24/7
Which does indeed make it understandable that you should provoke him a bit, though it does border on excessive:
2.
Quote:
[17:04:34] KingCx: okay you seem annoyed
[17:04:36] Veg4SpR[CC]: yse
[17:04:37] KingCx: are you annoyed?
[17:04:39] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:39] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:40] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:40] KingCx: am i bothering you?
[17:04:40] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:42] [IRF>JaguáR]: 3
[17:04:43] KingCx: are you getting pwnt?
[17:04:45] KingCx: does it hurt?
No, i understood the joke, and it was not a fail attempt at all. However it was his 10th complaint about my lag airhits, and it was said trough such frustration i was starting to get a bit annoyed annoyed. Thats why i decided to post that, i didnt flame i was merely just "poking him in the head".
Quote:
3. Then you guys seem to calm down, Veg making an attempt to clear things up by admitting that his team was losing fairly despite the occasional airhit:
Quote:
[17:09:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: anyway, we are definitely getting pwned
[17:09:06] spazico: nope
[17:09:07] Veg4SpR[CC]: but you have horrible timing
[17:09:12] Veg4SpR[CC]: so we scored 4x somehow
[17:09:13] Rø$éCDF: spazix
[17:09:14] Rø$éCDF: play
[17:09:15] KingCx: its stupid blackeye
[17:09:17] KingCx: he has the flag
[17:09:19] KingCx: he's always low
[17:09:20] Veg4SpR[CC]: thats why I am :@@@
[17:09:22] Veg4SpR[CC]: cause we have 0 control
[17:09:24] KingCx: and we'r never capable of getting C
Term i usually use is Bull**** but i am supposed to be civilized so il say its just not true, That was something nothing else than the fact that it was a fact. We were losing 4-2 or something but we had complete controll over them and veg merely stated it out. it was not "an attempt to clear things out".
Quote:
4. You guys score on a cto, Veg gets a bit pissed off, which is how pretty much everyone reacts initially in such a situation, and you can't resist bringing up the old cw business. In doing so, you decide to exaggerate greatly by saying that this is something that happens all the time:
Quote:
[17:12:00] KingCx: funny veg you always seem to cto on scoring opportunities
[17:12:01] Rř$éCDF: soz
[17:12:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: what
[17:12:06] Veg4SpR[CC]: YOU were e1
[17:12:08] Veg4SpR[CC]: we were S
[17:12:10] Veg4SpR[CC]: and I CTO'd
[17:12:11] Veg4SpR[CC]: fuck off
[17:12:13] *** Veg4SpR[CC] left the game
A bit pissed off? calling that a little pissed of is ridiculous. it was not an attempt "becuz i couldnt resist" to flame, i was making a joke. But now i can see why veg reacted so hard. You guys made sucha huge deal out of this instead of just admitting that Veg miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiighttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt have overreacted?
Quote:
As evident from the log, Veg decided not to make a huge deal about it. He simply left the game instead of properly flaming you. That would most likely have been the end of it, but apparently you hadn't had enough fun yet, so you decided to post the log on the forum, (1) partly because you think it's funny and (2) partly no doubt because you enjoy provoking Veg precisely because it's funny to you when he gets pissed off (see #1).
Not decided to make a big deal out of it? lol
[17:12:00] KingCx: funny veg you always seem to cto on scoring opportunities
[17:12:01] Rř$éCDF: soz
[17:12:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: what
[17:12:06] Veg4SpR[CC]: YOU were e1
[17:12:08] Veg4SpR[CC]: we were S
[17:12:10] Veg4SpR[CC]: and I CTO'd
[17:12:11] Veg4SpR[CC]: fuck off
[17:12:13] *** Veg4SpR[CC] left the game
Btw he also declared war on me in za, but goodjob on not making a big deal.
Quote:
but apparently you hadn't had enough fun yet, so you decided to post the log on the forum, (1) partly because you think it's funny
I posted it because it is funny. Veg completely overreacted to something which was clearly a joke (halfjoke since its actually true).
Quote:
partly no doubt because you enjoy provoking Veg precisely because it's funny to you when he gets pissed off (see #1)
.
lolwat?
Quote:
I've seen you on JJ2, and I know you like to provoke other good players (to your credit, you have the good taste of not trashtalking players who are clearly below your level). Personally I believe it's in good fun, and since I occassionally give you some trash talk too, I try to not make a big deal about it when you do it to me. (Though I would appreciate if you stuck to insulting me when you're actually involved in the game instead of making fun of me when you're not my teammate or opponent, like when I duelled and lost to Rose two days ago.) However, I don't believe that you and Veg are capable of trashtalking each other in good fun, so it would be a good idea for the both of you to try
lolwat??
Vegito, I trust you'll read everything I wrote to King above, since much of it applies to you too. It would also be nice if you could stop pointing it out whenever cooba, King and moti support each other. Everyone sees it anyway, and it only serves to escalate things when you make it explicit.
Cooba said nothing to support me. And you and your puppies came to veg's defense first anyways.
Well anyways, its very funny how u use my "aggressive attitude" to make me look like the bad one here, while its true tho that i get agressive at times.I have no idea what you mean by "he likes to insult good players", nor do i have idea what bs are you talking about you and rose dueling. I simply flame people when they do something stupid not becuz theyr "skilled",but still have no idea what are you talking about. However on this particular matter,the joke is not on me. Veg is the one who completely overreacted to something which was clearly not a provoking attempt, but he's incredibly childish and instead of saying "sorry king, i got pissed of and i was being a dick" he takes out his magical log, takes a good look at it, then squeezes stuff out of it exactly to the way so i could be the bad guy. It was a bit surprising gry was the one to do it this time tho, but i suppose its logical thing to do, becuz it sounds a lot more serious if someone else is trying to speak from his point of view. It is not even nearly a miracle that you and cooba are fighting each other. you both have this annoying thing to not be capable of admitting that what you did was wrong. You're both incredibly childish, like those 9year old kids who keep holding their breaths untill they get what they want. It literally makes me bump my head into walls. Cooba's really cool untill he does something stupid and we have a fight, and im like "eh not again...", and thats the same thought i had yesterday when you ragequitted. I do not find it funny when you get pissed off (well atleast not as much as you all think, but everyone's funny when theyr pissed off). My point is (il say it again) you made a huge deal out of something that was clearly a joke, and tried to make it look like i was only trying to flame. And if you cant see that, then there's nothing further to discuss.
Why am I wasting my time reading this? I dont mean your post gry(i definitely agree with u), but the whole thing? Its not the first time King tries to blame or provoke Vegs publicly, and later he turns things upside down. You do it on purpose and later u pretend to be a victim, sorry i dont "buy it". I even didnt have to read whole log of that situation, to know that. Not to mention fact that this log wasnt even funny.
King: Just to make things clear to you, since judging from your overnight replies, you might not have understood completely what I meant when we talked here and on skype:
You can criticize whoever you want to here, but you have to do it in a somewhat civilized manner. It's also nice if you address people clearly.
Quote:
Oh really? shuttup? Im not going to take crap or bullshit from this guy just becuz veg is his "clanmate".If you want to end a flamewar then dont say anything offesnive. About spamming on forums. Untill your pathetic meddling, i posted only one comment, so dont speak about bullshit about "spamming".
rewrite ->
Quote:
You want to silence me? I'm not going to stand for this just because Veg is your clanmate, Gry. If you want to end a flamewar, then don't say anything offensive. As far as spamming on the forums is concerned, I only posted on comment before you started meddling, so don't speak nonsense about "spamming".
Like I said on skype, you can criticize Veg in another thread if you want. Just don't ruin our only active one. You found it offensive when I told you to stop swearing and insulting? Have you seen your posts? As annoying as I sometimes find it when Veg feels the need to criticize people on this site, he does do his best to contain himself in the discussions in order to not escalate things completely. He was probably pretty pissed off when he saw your posting here, but there still isn't a single insult in hisreply:
Quote:
Which is after I CTO'd and you scored 10 seconds after I started CTOing. It's not the first time you're complaining/annoying me in such ways anyway.
Anyway, you pretty randomly said that to annoy me. Maybe you should not provoke/offend others either like maybe you did too right after:
[17:13:45] KingCx: wanted to copy chatlog
[17:13:48] IRF>JaguáR: lo
[17:13:50] IRF>JaguáR: lol
[17:13:51] spazico: lol
[17:13:54] KingCx: and you idiots kept talking
Very funny posting chatlogs like these. I'll remember it whenever you get pissed off and flame which happens more than enough too .
Also, since I was hoping this stuff would have ended last night, I didn't address this yet:
Quote:
Keep in mind however there were a lot of reports of your annoying CTO's exactly when enemy scores.
There were?
Anyway, Veg showed me some chatlogs from last night, so as far as I understand it, things went like this (Please correct me if my assessment of the situation seems flawed, because I didn't see all of the chatlog, so it's not theoretically impossible that Veg left out some part that makes him look bad):
1. Veg told you to stop airing him in a joking manner (that's how he tells me he intended it), but imo he failed completely at that, making it sound like you always air people and that's why you get any kills at all:
Quote:
[17:04:25] Veg4SpR[CC]: king: airhit production facility 24/7
Which does indeed make it understandable that you should provoke him a bit, though it does border on excessive:
2.
Quote:
[17:04:34] KingCx: okay you seem annoyed
[17:04:36] Veg4SpR[CC]: yse
[17:04:37] KingCx: are you annoyed?
[17:04:39] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:39] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:40] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:40] KingCx: am i bothering you?
[17:04:40] Rø$éCDF: H
[17:04:42] [IRF>JaguáR]: 3
[17:04:43] KingCx: are you getting pwnt?
[17:04:45] KingCx: does it hurt?
3. Then you guys seem to calm down, Veg making an attempt to clear things up by admitting that his team was losing fairly despite the occasional airhit:
Quote:
[17:09:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: anyway, we are definitely getting pwned
[17:09:06] spazico: nope
[17:09:07] Veg4SpR[CC]: but you have horrible timing
[17:09:12] Veg4SpR[CC]: so we scored 4x somehow
[17:09:13] Rø$éCDF: spazix
[17:09:14] Rø$éCDF: play
[17:09:15] KingCx: its stupid blackeye
[17:09:17] KingCx: he has the flag
[17:09:19] KingCx: he's always low
[17:09:20] Veg4SpR[CC]: thats why I am :@@@
[17:09:22] Veg4SpR[CC]: cause we have 0 control
[17:09:24] KingCx: and we'r never capable of getting C
4. You guys score on a cto, Veg gets a bit pissed off, which is how pretty much everyone reacts initially in such a situation, and you can't resist bringing up the old cw business. In doing so, you decide to exaggerate greatly by saying that this is something that happens all the time:
Quote:
[17:12:00] KingCx: funny veg you always seem to cto on scoring opportunities
[17:12:01] Rř$éCDF: soz
[17:12:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: what
[17:12:06] Veg4SpR[CC]: YOU were e1
[17:12:08] Veg4SpR[CC]: we were S
[17:12:10] Veg4SpR[CC]: and I CTO'd
[17:12:11] Veg4SpR[CC]: fuck off
[17:12:13] *** Veg4SpR[CC] left the game
As evident from the log, Veg decided not to make a huge deal about it. He simply left the game instead of properly flaming you. That would most likely have been the end of it, but apparently you hadn't had enough fun yet, so you decided to post the log on the forum, (1) partly because you think it's funny and (2) partly no doubt because you enjoy provoking Veg precisely because it's funny to you when he gets pissed off (see #1).
I've seen you on JJ2, and I know you like to provoke other good players (to your credit, you have the good taste of not trashtalking players who are clearly below your level). Personally I believe it's in good fun, and since I occassionally give you some trash talk too, I try to not make a big deal about it when you do it to me. (Though I would appreciate if you stuck to insulting me when you're actually involved in the game instead of making fun of me when you're not my teammate or opponent, like when I duelled and lost to Rose two days ago.) However, I don't believe that you and Veg are capable of trashtalking each other in good fun, so it would be a good idea for the both of you to try
1. not to insult each other's skills (or person, obviously) directly and
2. not do it by implication by blaming hits on lag (eventhough it's probably true when it happens; atleast I've never had the impression that either of you lie about such things) and most importantly
3. not to escalate things.
As far as everyone else is concerned:
Lithium, please consult me in the future before you remove chatlogs that are technically allowed in the topic since they're from JJ2 and aren't exceptionally sensitive or insulting. It would probably also have been better to move Veg's and King's discussion to a new thread at once. That way, atleast we don't provoke King into insulting us instead of just the person he's currently in a fight with.
Moti, your criticism of Lithium seems reasonable and it's not worded in an insulting way, but could you please make it clear in what way he's being inconsistent?
Vegito, I trust you'll read everything I wrote to King above, since much of it applies to you too. It would also be nice if you could stop pointing it out whenever cooba, King and moti support each other. Everyone sees it anyway, and it only serves to escalate things when you make it explicit.
I don't get it, just close or remove all your offensive posts directed to me. Let's start with this post, first one: http://www.jazzjackrabbit.net/index.php?league=1&season=1&op=descr&id=2873 and don't mind me getting an admin to kick you off a server when you flame me.
Anyway, king was obviously provoking and knew very well what he was doing. He was pretending I was lying and expects me not to get pissed. Instead, he pretends to be surprised when I defend myself. IMO, he was wrong by doing so. He provoked me earlier in the game too already and that can easily be 'funniest moments' too if you wish. Sure I shouldn't have said "Fuck off" but after his provoking/acting surprised/etc etc imo he was acting very wrong and he expected me to flame him at some point. Then he goes and posts that at jj.net.
I should've put a 1000$ bet on cooba and moti posting here.
I can't seem to get your point. If you're referring to the thread about cooba, my personal opinion about the thread and the conflict itself does not matter - locking it was the thing an admin should have done. If it's just a problem you have with me, let's solve it, wherever you want - the forum through a new thread (let's just stop spamming here), PMs, whatever.
the thing is that once you say one thing, then you do something else. you change your mind really fast and youre not even aware of it. cant you be consistent if you think youre such good and mature admin with manners who gives example? :3
just felt like saying this, since there is an occassion. i wont post anything anymore there. i would like other people to end this discussion too
Oh, I'll lock the thread. It doesn't contribute to solving the problem. However, I'll unlock it if you guys decide to try solving it that way (without flaming, of course). Also, I meant it was pointed out that you two should solve outside of the forums, just as I suggested Veg and King should solve it outside of the forums as well :p
ahh you see i wasnt trying to end a flamewar with veg, since he kindly "declared" war on me (seriously that was hilarious. Besides what would you expect of me to do after a guy just says "FUCK OFF" because of something stupid as that hmm? And even says "okay u want be my enemy, u go ahead NIOCH NIOCH NIOCH".
If you want to end a flamewar then dont say anything offesnive.
Maybe follow your own advice then?
King wrote:
Untill your pathetic meddling, i posted only one comment, so dont speak about bullshit about "spamming".
Let's see...
One comment, full of insults (plus an offensive picture) directed to Veg. Then, three more directed to Gry and me. That's considered spamming, especially after being told to stop, you know?
Oh really? shuttup? Im not going to take crap or bullshit from this guy just becuz veg is his "clanmate".If you want to end a flamewar then dont say anything offesnive. About spamming on forums. Untill your pathetic meddling, i posted only one comment, so dont speak about bullshit about "spamming".
oh that is priceless, you're actually trying to make me look like im the only one bad here, while veg is supposed to be "mature". This is your way of ending a flamewar?By making another one?
worst insulting ever. Well keep talking bullshit about me anyways. You're not much better. you can keep hiding behind your little admin "skills" but we all know you're a pathetic little piece of shit.
I bet if i was the one who got utterly pwnt, the comments would not have been deleted. Nice admin you are ron. Keep sniffing CC's ass its all you're good for anyways.
All of the comments were deleted because they caused a flamewar, King, not because it's all a CC/RDS conspiracy against you. Behave or I will be forced to employ harsher methods ~Lith
this is not just about the cw, tho no idea what are you talking about "not the first time that i annoyed u in sucha way". Keep in mind however there were a lot of reports of your annoying CTO's exactly when enemy scores. I bet you'l come up with crap like "its a lie" and all your clanmates will rush to your rescue but whatever. I will say this one thing, you're a childish motherfucker and you will never change. You made sucha big deal out of this and now i bet its going to turn into one massive drama. Your bullshit in za was aweseom gotta say. The reason why i posted that log in the funny moments is becuz u made a complete fool out of yourself for being a gigantic idiot and really deserved to be made fun of.
Which is after I CTO'd and you scored 10 seconds after I started CTOing. It's not the first time you're complaining/annoying me in such ways anyway.
Anyway, you pretty randomly said that to annoy me. Maybe you should not provoke/offend others either like maybe you did too right after:
[17:13:45] KingCx: wanted to copy chatlog
[17:13:48] IRF>JaguáR: lo
[17:13:50] IRF>JaguáR: lol
[17:13:51] spazico: lol
[17:13:54] KingCx: and you idiots kept talking
Very funny posting chatlogs like these. I'll remember it whenever you get pissed off and flame which happens more than enough too .
[17:12:00] KingCx: funny veg you always seem to cto on scoring opportunities
[17:12:01] Rř$éCDF: soz
[17:12:04] Veg4SpR[CC]: what
[17:12:06] Veg4SpR[CC]: YOU were e1
[17:12:08] Veg4SpR[CC]: we were S
[17:12:10] Veg4SpR[CC]: and I CTO'd
[17:12:11] Veg4SpR[CC]: fuck off
[17:12:13] *** Veg4SpR[CC] left the game
What do you guys think about founding some kind of a NT council with permanent representatives from all participating countries and teams that would organize the future editions of NT?
It'd be nice if we could get a few more interested refs who come from countries who are not playing, or who atleast definitely won't make (any of) their country's team(s). I want to try to use only neutral refs, but people who play can help with broadcasting or commenting.
[23:44:10] \\071: no
[23:44:10] Console: >> KingCx has logged in (Third)
[23:44:11] KingCx: /nocarrots off
[23:44:11] >> No Carrots has already been disabled
[23:44:13] \\071: too big
[23:44:13] KingCx: /nocarrots on
[23:44:13] Console: No Carrots has been ENABLED
[23:44:14] \\071: D:
Only ib and t3 voted. Solution 1 will remain in effect. I will edit the rules presently.
Edit: I've edited the rules now.
At the top you will find a list of recent (substantial) changes to the rules (I won't bother listing language or spelling fixes).
The latest changes (the last one made + older changes younger than a week) will be temporarily in boldface
Is it me or is the rule of "total timelimit must be >20min" not needed, as the other rules make it impossible to break this one?
or am I skipping something?
I'd say go with the first (simple) ruleset, It's basically what we do now and will stop stupid arguments.
I like the new rules, basically the standard remains the same, but you've got more options to fiddle around with.
Basically the new rules don't subtract anything from the old set, but they add additional options for those who might want them.
Seems like a bargain to me
Uhm I wouldnt mind people who prefer to play on scores instead of on the timelimit to have that option, but that only counts for normal ladders not for cw's if I'm correct (meaning the cw rules don't change)?
If so the second set of rules offers more options for players which can in general be good, although I myself prefer timebased games.
Dear laddereurs and ladderettes,
JJB has brought to my attention that there was no rule regarding to the length and maxscore of ladder matches. These are the rules for clanwars:
§2: The length of rounds
§2.1 Each round is 20 minutes or to 20 points by default.
§2.2 Other round lengths and maxscores are possible if clans agree, down to 10 minutes and 10 points.
The rules for clanwars are meant to create a match setting which, along with the clans brining their best squad, show which clan is the better one. For the ladder matches, we have come up with two options. One solution is essentially the same, but with a different standard length, as we don't want ladder matches to be necessarily as time-consuming as clanwars. Because the issues are intertwined, the amount of rounds will be built in to the rule sets.
§2: The length and amount of rounds
§2.1 Each round is 15 minutes or to 15 points by default.
§2.2 Other round lengths and maxscores are possible if clans agree, down to 10 minutes and 10 points.
§2.3 The timelimits of the rounds have to amount to atleast 20 minutes (which is equal to the time consumed by two minimal rounds).
That one keeps the same logic, but is a bit less hard-core. The alternative solution is to allow all games that are considered normal JJ2, which necessarily becomes a bit more complex. Playing less than this would be considered offensively lazy by a lot of people. This yields a rather complex set of rules:
§2: The length of rounds
§2.1 Each round is 15 minutes or to 15 points by default.
§2.2 Other round lengths and maxscores are possible if clans agree, down to 10 minutes and 10 points.
§2.2.1 Alternatively, you can play a game without a timelimit, down to a maxscore 5 points.
§2.2.2 The timelimits of the rounds have to amount to atleast 20 minutes (which is equal to the time consumed by two minimal rounds).
§2.2.2.3 A round without a timelimit, as provided for in 2.2.1, counts as follows for the purpose of rule 2.2.2:
maxscore 5 to 9 -> 10 minutes
maxscore 10 (or higher) -> 20 minutes
This solution is essentially the same, but allows for playing ladders without a timelimit, which in turn makes rule 2.2.2 and its child rule quite complex.
I would like all clanleaders to send an e-mail to [email protected] by Sunday (May 6) voting for the option that they prefer (1 or 2). Suggestions about the details of the rule set they prefer are likewise welcome in the e-mail.
For the time being, the first solution will apply to all ladders (even if the rules have not been updated yet).
As always, you are welcome to discuss the issue in the comments, but the vote cast by your clanleader is what will matter in the end.
Grytings!
Edit:
Only ib and t3 voted. Solution 1 will remain in effect. I will edit the rules presently.
.
.
very hardwork to read all this yay !
