>So I'd appreciate it if you refrained from attacking my own.
That's funny because I seem to recall you shoving your ideal of competitiveness down everyone else's throats not more than a few hours ago.
Quote
Then don't do it? No one says you have to. (n/t)
Matrik March 02, 2012 06:02AM
You do have to, if you want to compete.
vortexmagus March 02, 2012 06:44AM
I want to clarify this, why is it wrong when I do the same thing you do in response? Is it somehow offensive because it's
your opinion being attacked? I have not been one bit more aggressive than you were.
>I don't agree with all your ideas of competitiveness.
See, this is where I agree.
>I've played many characters who had a high chance of killing newbies and almost a nil chance of killing veterans, and I'm just not all that interested in continuing with that. I'd rather
>avoid killing newbies when possible, and rape the everloving shit out of as many veterans as I can :)
Which veterans are we talking about, I thought we were talking about only tavlins/etc. Because, frankly, most of our veterans aren't all that hot of pkers. I've never felt the need to prep out the ass against them, because that same hit and run tactic works far far more often at very low risk/expense.
>I do agree with you that I'd happily play the guy who lost 99 fights but got away and sealed the kill on the other guy the 100th time. But I'm not sure how that's relevant to our
>discussion, as I don't see that sort of thing opposed to my own ideas, and I don't see that sort of thing as opposed to your ideas either.
Your suggestion that this takes lots of EXCLUSIVE game knowledge is false, is where I think it is in direct opposition.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 08:52AM by RobDarken.