@GEN-MANSTEIN oh I thought you had a rule set. I didnt know you meant you made an entire game. LOL. Nice
Report playtest thread for TOTAL PACIFIC US strategy
-
Since you don’t seem to understand, I’ll simplify it.
You only need 1 game to prove that imbalance exists. Did one player do everything they could against a particular strategy and still lose? If so, then imbalance exists.
However, playing 10 games, 100 games, 1000 games, etc., where they all seem balanced proves nothing, since only one game needs to be imbalanced to prove that an imbalanced strat exists. One would need to examine EVERY game ever played to prove that imbalance does not exist. Do you agree?
The key here is that Jen has allegedly already proved that imbalance exists, and since she has said that she plays pretty much only on the forums, she probably has this proof somewhere on the forums. All we need is the link to the game where the axis did everything they could and still lost, and then we can conclude that there exists an unbalanced strat.
All we need is to see the one game where Jen allegedly proved that imbalance exists (if there is more than one, all the better, but we only need one). Since Jen has already allegedly proved that it exists, logically, there is no need to do more testing; all she needs to do is share the proof. It’s as easy as looking back through her games to find the thread she is talking about and posting a link. No typing is even necessary, just copy/paste.
(BTW I see IL has joined in. Point out what is circular reasoning since you say it’s here. Point out what’s “semantics” since you say it’s here.)
Since you don’t understand , play Jennifer a game so she can show you whats going on. Stop avoiding playing her and posting off topic posts…
Jennifer will teach you about all the issues you ask about.
-
MANTLEFAN VS COMMNADER JENNIFER
time and venue tba
-
sigh……didnt have the effect i wanted!
-
Since I am new to this forum it is entirely possible that there is an online history between you guys to which I am not privy.
However, in my country we have a saying. Man up. Just battle her dude. You have decided to go on a pseudo-philosophical rant. Have you read David Hume? One of the great analytic geniuses of the Enlightenment. He placed great emphasis on the role of experience in providing understanding.
So man up and dig in.
And post results as I am curious :)
-
@mantlefan:
Nonsense? Nonsense is demanding a test of a game take place that requires a well-informed and experienced axis who has seen this strat enough to know the best options for the axis be done by an axis who has never seen the strat before. At least by studying some games, I can get a better idea for when I run a test whether it’s with Jen or not, even if I don’t become the best player ever out of it.
…
Are you claiming that by playing just one game I can FULLY grasp what her idea is? (well yes, because that’s exactly what you said). Do you not admit that is ludicrous? One game against a strategy, and a person can fully understand everything about it. Lol.
…
So one game involving myself allows me to fully grasp the idea (asinine), so what does looking at play reports allow me to grasp? Absolutely nothing?
So let’s say I improve my strat each game I play. Which will be better, the strat in the first game of the series where I have seen no play reports, or the strat in the first game of a series after I have seen play reports (that according to Jen already exist, mind you.) ?
Here’s the key question, it’s yes or no, if you don’t answer it I see little reason to continue to respond to your posts as long as they continue in this line you have started.
Will seeing the game reports of this “broken” USA strat in action give a person who has never seen the strat in action before a better idea of the strat?
If I have a better idea of the strat, I think we can both agree that I will need to play less games to figure out the best way I can try to defend against it.
The less information axis goes in with the more games are wasted. I really don’t feel like spending dozens of hours playing the first few games when the number of games could have been cut down with only several hours of studying game reports. Call that an excuse, but if I do this, it won’t be with an idiotic methodology just because glorious IL says so.
…
It would also be nice to see that Jen would be more interested in seeing IF the game is imbalanced instead of setting out to prove the game is imbalanced.
dude, i think these sections of your rant are fair…
so, if jen provides you with bat reps you will battle her???
-
Jen’s already playing a bunch of games. You need to bite the bullet and ask her. She has given you more than enough info and reasoning- YOU NEED TO TRY THE STRATEGY THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR.
Otherwise your just TALK- BOK BOK, BOK!!!
-
This forum amuses me greatly :)
-
If the links were posted the entire community could playtest the US strategy. More importantly, Larry and the playtesters would be in a better position to determine what changes they should or shouldnt make. The main goal here is balance afterall.
-
@mantlefan:
Jen’s already playing a bunch of games. You need to bite the bullet and ask her. She has given you more than enough info and reasoning- YOU NEED TO TRY THE STRATEGY THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR.
Otherwise your just TALK- BOK BOK, BOK!!!
Lol, “More than enough info and reasoning.” It’s easy to have been supplied with more than enough reasoning when in your case, anything said remotely in support of a claim that you decided was true before any evidence was presented is “proof”
If you didn’t look at Jen’s posts with an agenda and thinking that since you already “knew” you were right, everyhting Jen said was evidence, maybe you might actually have been able to add something productive.
There’s really no point in trying to actually see if the strat is broken with you in the picture because you already decided it is broken.
IL on the other hand really doesn’t care about all that, he just wants to come after me any way he can.
Jen’s a bit more of a mystery; she seems to think it’s important to balance the game but instead of supplying all the information possible (and this would take only a few seconds t copy paste these links) to make meaningful tests, she provides general paragraphs about how these multiple games allegedly went.
I am not saying she is wrong, but the proof could be in these PBF games that still haven;t materialized for some reason. I think five minutes to post a few links is worth it if it even cuts down one unneccessary test, but I guess since IL says I’m wrong and deleted all my posts explaining myself I guess I’m wrong. I love how I’m the one accused of not adding anything when at the end of practically every post you’ve had in the last few days there is some line that’s only purpose is to insult written in all caps. It’s pretty obvious IL is still sore after thinking that I was trying to steal his Italy neutrality rule when I was agreeing that (for once) he had a good idea. Paranoid, vindictive, and incapable of logical discourse. It is an honor to have such traits in a mod that has no repurcussions for acting on whims.
Excuses, excuses, excuses- your pathetic
Like I said, still won’t just break down and play Jen will you???
If you won’t simply try the strategy- that can only mean that you are afraid that you will be wrong about everything.
Nice try saying earlier that “my ABattlemap doesn’t work”HAWW HAWW (rolling off my seat)
I can smell the FEAR in you a thousand miles away.
-
If the links were posted the entire community could playtest the US strategy. More importantly, Larry and the playtesters would be in a better position to determine what changes they should or shouldnt make. The main goal here is balance afterall.
Did it already- a little slow on that one chief. :wink:
-
hey Mantlefan:
When you gonna play Jennifer and stop avoiding a game with her with another post about how its best that you hide from the challenge?
-
Why does it matter that mantle plays jen?
-
Why does it matter that mantle plays jen?
It doesn’t, especially as he’s already acknowledged that he’s probably not as seasoned a player, which means it would be a horribly flawed case study.
-
I also heard he said he can play basketball better than Michael Jordan…
-
There will be plenty of links once you man up and play Jen. Then she can show you the strategy first hand. Why do you keep avoiding this???
-
I really don’t want to take sides; but should moderators take sides? Seems counterproductive. :|
-
@mantlefan:
@M:
I really don’t want to take sides; but should moderators take sides? Seems counterproductive. :|
Someone could argue that the Earth is flat and IL would take that side as long as I was on the other.
What’s counterproductive is the fact that mantlefan here continues to stall with pointless posts & silly arguments. Instead he should be playing Jen to verify this strategy. It seems that he’s afraid to be beat by a girl….
-
@C_Strabala:
@mantlefan:
@M:
I really don’t want to take sides; but should moderators take sides? Seems counterproductive. :|
Someone could argue that the Earth is flat and IL would take that side as long as I was on the other.
What’s counterproductive is the fact that mantlefan here continues to stall with pointless posts & silly arguments. Instead he should be playing Jen to verify this strategy. It seems that he’s afraid to be beat by a girl….
Jebus people, he freely admitted he’s probably not as strong a player. If that’s the case, then no, playing her doesn’t really test the strategy if the goal is to find a way to beat it. In order to prove a strategy is broken, you need to test all possible ways to beat it, not just see the strategy in action. It’s CLEARLY a viable strategy, no one is arguing that, but what hasn’t been proven is that it’s a unbeatable strategy. A stronger player using a strategy against a weaker player will net a result which may simply be a false positive. Woooo, bad data point. Woooo, humiliated Mantlefan. woo.
It needs to be tested. It’s completely irrelevant whether Mantlefan plays Jen just to see it in action, because getting trounced by a stronger player doesn’t prove anything. Ooooooo, a strategy that’s claimed to be unbeatable crushed a weaker when executed by a player who has how many tourney wins? Wait, what does that prove? That Jen’s a better player? Hoorah. We already settled that (despite the fact that she has had some seriously flawed rule interpretations in the past). To be fair, I don’t always have a perfect grasp on the rules either, but I am NOT an experienced player by any means.
It wouldn’t hurt if Mantlefan played Jen and saw it first hand, but again, it doesn’t prove anything. His request for links to Jen’s games where she performed it isn’t exactly asking for the moon. She’s played dozens if not hundreds of games and only SHE would know which games were freaking relevant. She SHOULD post the links to those games. She SHOULD have posted them from the outset for review. It’s a bit perverse that she hasn’t, but it still needs to be tested without them (but since she’s played it, she clearly has them, so just bloody well post the links).
And everyone else that plays on the forums SHOULD try the strategy out, but for heaven’s sake, it would be most helpful if you were evenly matched. Besides, the only truly relevant games will be those done by players with OOOOOODLES of experience, who know exactly how to make the most efficient moves and purchases. And, if it’s not too much to ask, they should do the utmost to make sure they aren’t breaking the rules (cough retreating from a hostile seazone during combat move and loading and moving during noncombat cough).
-
i’m with kcdzim and mantlefan on this: anyone man enough to take on Cmdr jennifer?
:-)
-
i’m with kcdzim and mantlefan on this: anyone man enough to take on Cmdr jennifer?
The point is to test out the idea. Its not important who wins, only if the result can be replicated under game conditions. That is the only truth validation.
Once a result is measured after more tests employing the same strategy, a pattern will emerge.
It is obvious that some people want to avoid this direct test and throw up paper arguments and fake walls….anything except test out the ideas.
Seems counter intuitive to any positive development of the claims both for or against Jennifer’s ideas, unless a test shows a pattern of repeated results.
Suggested Topics
