From: sfd@soda.berkeley.edu (Scott Drellishak)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: Hell Peacock
Date: 9 Oct 1992 08:42:58 GMT
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <Bvtv1G.88C.2@cs.cmu.edu> hill@norman.VI.RI.CMU.EDU (Robert Hill) writes:
)Scott 'I have spoken' Drellishak writes
)> This article sums up everything I've ever criticized CMU for.  Namely,
)> the idea that ogging (captialized, even) is equivalent to "clew", and
)> ignorance about our netrek heritage.  Hell Peacock has been around so
)> long that you approval is meaningless.
)> 
)> Tremble in fear.
)
)And you state the entire reason why berkeley teams have not been able to  
)beat a CMU team.  Ogging is a superior tactic to dogfighting.  Therefore,  
)a clueful player would tend more to ogging, and less to dogfighting,  
)simply because it is more efficient.  So, really, ogging rather than  
)dogfighting is more clueful.
)
)Eventually, ogging causes running, which is another tactic more effective  
)than dogfighting.  Since you can't ogg the runners, bombing becomes  
)important, and quickly you learn that bombing is the ultimate plan.

So, ogging is better than dogfighting, and bombing is better than
ogging, and nothing is better than bombing?  How can I refute such
a careful analysis?

)Yes, hell peacock has been around a long time, but so have you, scott, and  
)who takes you seriously as a player?  Not I.  Tremble in fear?  Of your  
)destroyer?  hehe.

Since I've only played on discovery, calvin, bigdog (when it's full),
and sturgeon in the last few months, it seems unlikely that I'd ever
encounter you.  In any case, I play netrek to relax after work, not to
winwinwinwinwin.  The biggest flaw of the now-popular CMU style of
play is that it turns netrek from a game into a contest.  Frankly, I'd
rather play a fun game of softball than an all-out game of baseball.
If you take my meaning.

Just out of curiosity, those of you have played against me in the last
couple of months, send me mail and tell me if you take me seriously as
a player.  I can't remember the last time somebody totally dominated
me dogfighting -- and starbases don't count.  I can even do pretty
well against phaser-scum in battleships, although BB vs. DD isn't
really a fair fight.

)I never did understand the berkeley complaint about CMU players.  The  
)first year I played, we were all runners...CMU players sucked because we  
)always ran.  Last year, all we could do was ogg.  Now we don't understand  
)your heiritage?  Please...can't you find anything better to bitch about?

No, you don't understand *our* (yours too) heritage.  Next thing,
you'll be saying, "I saw this guy smith playing from sgi.com, and he
was just a silly dogfighting weenie!  He didn't ogg at all."  I'd use
a smiley if this hadn't actually happened the other day (on discovery,
I think...).

The reason I don't like the current trend in netrek is that it takes
what I consider to be the fun parts of the game away.  The CMU style
is a successful strategy, given the current rules of netrek, but any
style which de-emphasizes dogfighting (which is what Xtrek was
originally about, before cloaking, stats, and planet-taking) is, in my
opinion, boring.  It's a video game.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make a declaration.  As the CMU
style of play (ogg and bomb) has replaced the Berkeley style of play
(dogfighting) as the most popular right now, I predict that the
sturgeon style of play (PeltRunUpgrade -- [tm] Ben Polk) will soon
become dominant, once the sturgeon standard server replaces the bronco
standard server.  Can somebody help me get my tongue out of my cheek?
-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Scott Drellishak   sfd@neuromancer.metaphor.com                          |
|                "Spumco ... the Danes call it quality."                   |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/