Ok, I'll try one last time.
This thread, that thread and all other threads are not about deity/standard/standard/fastest finish. They are about all games, 99% of which don't match this setup. However, you've chosen to focus on single statement, attacking it's literal interpretation and the person who made the statement while ignoring its real meaning. At first you narrowed the discussion to the only thing you could pick on and now you're saying I'm trying to include irrelevant topics.
since you haven't provided any evidence/counter-argument regarding whether tommynt style works at deity or not, I assume you have nothing to prove your claim.
For the topic itself - did I say it is only about deity at first? I was merely responding to other player's counter-argument about deity. I think you are really good at distorting. Let me just quote where this started.
It does, especially at higher difficulty levels.
If I abuse I can easily win Deity. If not, I have a very hard time. I only managed to win one deity game so far with the HoF rules.
So this post clearly only discusses about deity level. And since this was a complete reply (I mean whole, not part of) to my post and this post was the one I did respond, so I limited the discussion to the deity level.
There were several more posts after this and he told me that he should have written "I could win deity", and for his point of view deity did mean duel/tiny maps. I took it as a valid excuse and we stopped the discussion.
You see, I didn't bring this up to revive the argument about whether your approach works on deity but as an example to a certain attitude many players siding with that approach happen to share. The way you expect (or should I say demand) us to defend our right to have an opinion on the matter, is another example. The way some of you are looking down and criticizing those who refuse to use your approach is one more, which Ribannah was referring to.
Did I look down on someone? did I criticize those you refuse to use my approach? I only asked for evidences/examples if you would like to make an counter-argument to mine. I have not used any offensive language and I provided concrete examples to support my argument.
On the other hand, you said "parrots" and "loyal followers" to players with different style, which was the very reason for my first reply in this thread. And when asked, you said there are "logical fallacies" in other players' claim - that I asked later for clarification, but you could not provide any.
Moreover, you said
It's just an example to why trying to find a common ground with 'new school' players is sometimes extremely frustrating.
I have no idea where this "new school" definition comes from or why it is needed, but one thing is certain: you label players with different opinion as "new school."
According to posts at this thread, I believe that you are the one who criticizes other players if they have different opinions and look down on them (again, parrots?)
Lastly, I really don't understand why you continuously try to include other players by saying something like "many players sliding with that approach" and "some of you". This is a discussion (or argument) between you and me, and I never say anything about other people as they are irrelevant for the discussion unless they join and make their claims. You try to put me into a certain group that you divide players into and make a vague statement about the "group", instead of making logical argumetns.
For the issue, It was you who specifically brought it up here again:
But the aggressive stance, on a verge of bullying, many of those players take each time the issue arises. Your recent argument with Peets in one of the threads is a prime example.
and you also said:
The only point is that this abuse reduces the difficulty significantly on any level. An indisputable fact which you completely ignore. Sorry, I distort nothing.
and I did state again the same thing: tommynt style (that you call "abuse") does not work at deity. I did not include other topics since they are irrelevant for this discussion. And you kept distorting the meanings and finally even twisted my arguments into your A and B terms, which I did not even talk about, and completely ignored C, perma-screwed up diplomacy and no favorable peace deals at deity if you "abuse".
And just because I know you won't drop the subject - I do play on deity and I win without using most of the exploits. So hopefully I'm qualified enough, by your definition, to express my PoV. You don't have to deal and DoW repeatedly vs. multiple opponents to abuse them. It's enough to do it only coupe of times or even once or against the same AI. You still get free cash you don't deserve, AI loses the cash it does deserve and as a result your life is easier than it is supposed to be.
First, this discussion was about so-called tommynt style that plays very aggresively at the beginning (Deal and DoW most AIs, no intention of "real" battle before peace treaties, and get favorable peace deals and continue if necessary). I assume that you knew the definition of the term we've talked about. We are talking about "exploits" (or "abuse") - we are not talking about going on a real war (as current HoF rules even permit this) and not about Deal and DoW (and make peace without real fight) once (which is allowed in the current HoF rules - I recently learned this from Maxym). Legal practices, Deal and DoW once or only when you are going on a real war is not an issue we were discussing in this thread. And I said it many times : I believe that using "exploits" (or tommynt-style) does not work at deity and play by HoF rules is a better approach, in my point of view, as costs of early DoWs outweigh benefit of small lump sum gold at the beginning.
While I understand that this type of discussion might not be proper for this thread, but keep in mind that it was you who started this. Furthermore, since HoF games include all difficulty levels, in particular deity level, I believe that whether certain "abuse", or "exploits" work at deity level or not is also an interest of this thread and deserves attention.
To other players who read this thread:
If players want me to stop this discussion, I will. I also feel that this is counter-productive at this point, unless the other participant brings logical explanation or examples.
Hence the problem of clarity.
