Re: Duelmasters: What would you do with this guy?

From: thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer)

Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 06:55:35 +0000

Ah!  I think I see the problem now.
I'll get to it below...

["In article..." stuff deleted -- we know who wrote what!]

>>From most of your points of view, your
>>quick "retire him" or "try Home Guard" answers may have been reasonable.
>>From mine, they are useless, as THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MY QUESTION.
>
>Sorry.  You said in your original post: "My question is, given this
>guy at this point, what would you do or try with him?  (And please, no
>"DA him" or "forget him" kind of suggestions; they are not helpful.)"  I
>admit that my impulse is still to retire him, and I'm sorry if I took a
>broad interpretation of the word "do."  I guess you mean strategy-wise;  I
>didn't understand that.  I mean, you didn't say that.  But I apologise
>anyway.

Here's the problem, John: *YOU* didn't read everything *I* said.

I asked my question twice in my original-on-this-subject posting, both
times phrased differently in hope to clarify.  The first phrasing, which
you seem to have read and remembered, was

"Given this guy at this point, what would you do or try with him?
  (And please, no 'DA him' or 'forget him' kind of suggestions, as
  they are not helpful.)"

I thought the request for "no 'DA him' or 'forget him'" responses would be
enough to stave off the unwanted non-answers.  (Silly me.)  But just in
case, after presenting all his stats, I re-asked the question (which I
quoted later), which you apparently missed, as

"Given that you had to fight this guy in the arena, what would you try?"

What was not to understand here?  This does not sound to me like I'm
worried about wasting my time or wondering whether to continue, and I'm
sorry if it somehow gave that impression.  I did (and do) intend to
continue fighting him (thus, "Given that you had to..."), and was looking
for suggestions/impressions/experiments as to what might work and/or be
interesting.

>Again, your question was: "given this guy at this point, what would you
>do or try with him?"

Again, not if you read my whole article.

Oh, also:

>> most
>>players are apparently more concerned with finding the best long-term
>>(i.e. Primus) potenial warrior they can get than anything else, and
>>that's a perfectly reasonable approach to the game.
>>  To me it is a little narrow, or
>>"tunnel viewed," an approach: I enjoy exploring more different aspects of
>>Duelmasters than that will allow.
>
>As do I.  However, I find that I can have just as much fun with a warrior
>who has good potential, than with a warrior who doesn't.

So can I.  That is why I am always willing to work with EITHER, and not
restrict myself to one or the other.

Hope this clear things up.  This debate really isn't worth continuing.
(Unless you want to give a crack at a suggestion to my REAL question...)

+-----------------------------------+
               |   thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu   |
               +-----------------------------------+

P.S.  Oh, yeah.  Thanks to Trump and Garth, and those few who read and
understood my question and e-mailed responses.

References

Re: Duelmasters: What would you do with this guy?
thogek@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Thomas Kiefer)
Fri, 22 May 1992 00:55:03 +0000
Re: Duelmasters: What would you do with this guy?
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu (John White)
Mon, 25 May 1992 01:03:21 +0000