Least favorite robot!

[Resetti's Replicas]

Never liked Razer very much. All it did was make holes vvveeerrryyy ssslllooowwwlllyyy.......

Well, at least it actually made holes, unlike a certain oversized pair of tongs....

Is that a subtle reference to everybodys *ahem* favourite robot?

Which is?

Tough as Nails. Cheap as Chips

FTFY

Funny story,
Team Tough As Nails bought Cassius 2 a few years back, and were recently looking for - and I quote - "A fine upstanding handsome young Englishman to take Cassius 2 off our hands."  I gave them your name, but they insisted on doing a background check.  One thing lead to another, and they found the comments you'd made in this thread.
Anyways, last I heard from them, they'd started using using Cassius 2 as a crunch-test-dummy for TAN.

[G.K.]

I assume he means cheap wins

Correct.

Aye, wins via the pit. Pits of course being the incredibly cheap method of winning GF93 championed against Naryar.

[GoldenFox93]

I assume he means cheap wins

Correct.

Aye, wins via the pit. Pits of course being the incredibly cheap method of winning GF93 championed against Naryar.

Just shut up. I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours.

[G.K.]

I'm not denying you your opinion - I'm merely saying my own, which as you say, I am entitled to.

[GoldenFox93]

I'm not denying you your opinion - I'm merely saying my own, which as you say, I am entitled to.

You obviously are- in how you're pretty much looking down on me for not liking it. I realise this is going to be BAWing, but really- is there a justifiable reason to be hounded this much for not liking it?

[G.K.]

I don't consider you to be BAW'wing tbh. Nor am I looking down on you. I just like debating stuff mostly.

[madman3]

I'm not denying you your opinion - I'm merely saying my own, which as you say, I am entitled to.

You obviously are- in how you're pretty much looking down on me for not liking it. I realise this is going to be BAWing, but really- is there a justifiable reason to be hounded this much for not liking it?

Because your reason is, um, unreasonable. Pitting bots was probably more difficult than flipping them out by Series 7, because so many bots were adapted to fight clamps, spinners, and bots with horizontal weapons. The amount of crap you give a fantastically engineered and damaging (see the battle with Robochicken; and before you start whining about how little damage it does, have a look at your little flippers which do even less damage, both superficially and internally) robot because you simply don't like it is both insulting to its creator and poorly reasoned.

[Badger]

I always found that Stinger always had very boring fights, where it couldn't do any damage to the opponent and it's design made it hard to damage.

I also disliked Razer on the basis that you always knew who would win the fight, and how.

[That Robot is a Spy!]

I dislike TAN not only for the pitting, but the fact it barely did any damage. I loved Kan Opener and had they switched heats, KO could have made it through to the semis.

[G.K.]

Do you dislike Panic Attack?

[Badger]

That's a point actually. But to do well with PA you had to have the skill to keep the bot on the forks. With clamps you clamp once and forget.

[GoldenFox93]

I'm not denying you your opinion - I'm merely saying my own, which as you say, I am entitled to.

You obviously are- in how you're pretty much looking down on me for not liking it. I realise this is going to be BAWing, but really- is there a justifiable reason to be hounded this much for not liking it?

Because your reason is, um, unreasonable. Pitting bots was probably more difficult than flipping them out by Series 7, because so many bots were adapted to fight clamps, spinners, and bots with horizontal weapons. The amount of crap you give a fantastically engineered and damaging (see the battle with Robochicken; and before you start whining about how little damage it does, have a look at your little flippers which do even less damage, both superficially and internally) robot because you simply don't like it is both insulting to its creator and poorly reasoned.

You do have a point about pitting robots being harder than OOTAing in Series 7- whilst it's great to look forward to at the end of a fight and a good way to give certain robot types a fighting chance against others (IE. A flipper or a rammer against a spinner or an axe), you'd expect them to sometimes branch out and utilise different means of winning every now and then, and failing that (IE. Panic Attack or Razer), at the very least be somewhat exciting to watch- sure flippers didn't do that much damage, but their performances of throwing opponents around rather than gently holding them (Robochicken's armour was below average, so don't try to use it as the cure all-end all example to my argument, here) and relying on one thing and one thing only to win at least made them entertaining to watch. TAN was neither of these things.
 
As a final point, I do like how you make me out to be some kind of perpetual whiner who dislikes it simply because it exists and with intent to personally attack its creator- real mature, mate.
In fact, the way you take me having an honest opinion and twisting it to make me look like some kind of monster for it, makes you worse than me in that regard.
 
Now I want to end this- I'm sick of belligerent idiots like you picking fights with me over my opinion.

[That Robot is a Spy!]

Do you dislike Panic Attack?

Yes, the driving was immense, and a few brownie points because it used to be my local bot. TAN took a while to pit a bot really apart from DO. I didn't find TAN's pitting cheap, just annoying. With flippers, at least you can be shocked when a robot flies out the arena. With TAN, you can take one look at the opponent's design and decide who will win.

[That Robot is a Spy!]

Another I didn't like was ROCS. It was a depressing site, slow, messy, ineffective and an eyesore.

[G.K.]

Because your reason is, um, unreasonable. Pitting bots was probably more difficult than flipping them out by Series 7, because so many bots were adapted to fight clamps, spinners, and bots with horizontal weapons. The amount of crap you give a fantastically engineered and damaging (see the battle with Robochicken; and before you start whining about how little damage it does, have a look at your little flippers which do even less damage, both superficially and internally) robot because you simply don't like it is both insulting to its creator and poorly reasoned.

You do have a point about pitting robots being harder than OOTAing in Series 7- whilst it's great to look forward to at the end of a fight and a good way to give certain robot types a fighting chance against others (IE. A flipper or a rammer against a spinner or an axe), you'd expect them to sometimes branch out and utilise different means of winning every now and then, and failing that (IE. Panic Attack or Razer), at the very least be somewhat exciting to watch- sure flippers didn't do that much damage, but their performances of throwing opponents around rather than gently holding them (Robochicken's armour was below average, so don't try to use it as the cure all-end all example to my argument, here) and relying on one thing and one thing only to win at least made them entertaining to watch. TAN was neither of these things.

Nonsense - a competitor, as SKBT has said has no obligation to do either thing. They want to win, first, entertain second. anyway, some of us find it entertaining. I have no problem with you not liking it for not meeting these requirements, I for one only take issue with you calling it cheap becaause of these reasons. BTW, it did use a different means of winning every now and then. It only won 57 percent of its battles by it pitting opponents, which just so happens to be the same percentage as that of Panic Attack, a robot you lauded for using different methods.

As a final point, I do like how you make me out to be some kind of perpetual whiner who dislikes it simply because it exists and with intent to personally attack its creator- real mature, mate.

Point to me where he said that before making it up. He never said you went out to insult them. He said what you said is insulting, which is a totally different thing.

[Natef]

I assume he means cheap wins

Correct.

Aye, wins via the pit. Pits of course being the incredibly cheap method of winning GF93 championed against Naryar.

...and me.

[madman3]

You do have a point about pitting robots being harder than OOTAing in Series 7- whilst it's great to look forward to at the end of a fight and a good way to give certain robot types a fighting chance against others (IE. A flipper or a rammer against a spinner or an axe), you'd expect them to sometimes branch out and utilise different means of winning every now and then, and failing that (IE. Panic Attack or Razer), at the very least be somewhat exciting to watch- sure flippers didn't do that much damage, but their performances of throwing opponents around rather than gently holding them (Robochicken's armour was below average, so don't try to use it as the cure all-end all example to my argument, here) and relying on one thing and one thing only to win at least made them entertaining to watch. TAN was neither of these things.
 
As a final point, I do like how you make me out to be some kind of perpetual whiner who dislikes it simply because it exists and with intent to personally attack its creator- real mature, mate.
In fact, the way you take me having an honest opinion and twisting it to make me look like some kind of monster for it, makes you worse than me in that regard.
 
Now I want to end this- I'm sick of belligerent idiots like you picking fights with me over my opinion.

Paragraph 1, since I feel like if you are going to personally insult me, I might as well make a protest.

What's to say the pit isn't a cool way of dealing with opponents? Subjectivity is not a reasonable backup for arguments.
Also, you cannot judge the power of TAN's crusher as "gentle"; that's simply stupid, as it was likely as strong as many of the flippers, and likely stronger; or do you want to refer to the flippers as "gentle"? Once again, subjectivity to back up subjectivity isn't going to work.
Flippers often used one tactic. Spinners generally use one tactic. Storm II, one of the holy grails of roboteering, had only one real tactic, save for against Typhoon.

No. 2:

Because you're the better man by actually personally insulting me; and I think complaining about an opinion being used as an absolute and your lovely attitude of being questioned is just wonderful. As G.K. said, I heavily doubt you kn ow the creator of TAN, and I doubt that you hold any grudges against him, but your "Cheap As Chips" is frankly insulting to the creators of TAN. Would you like me to constantly say that Cassius II was "Cheap As Chips"? After all, that one tactic of overturning bots in an era where shrimechs were rare, and where it also failed to get a victory because Rex used a certain driving style that made him end up in the pit couldn't possibly be cheap in that era.

Take your ego down a notch, and actually accept this as a discussion rather than a personal attack; I am not intending it to be such, and I'm very sorry that you can't seem to understand that.

[Enigm@]

i think someone's mad.

[GoldenFox93]

i think someone's mad.

Rather- serious business.

[madman3]

i think someone's mad.

Rather- serious business.

Ee'yup.

also i c wut u did thar