Gladiator Styles Philosophy

[R3volution]

Originally Posted by Kiedo

K-Style was originally coined as playing in the "style" of Kraise/Koreans. With the introduction of D-Style, the definition changed to encompass a series of special moves which were limited to each respective melee weapon. It was at this time that K-Style became known as Korean/Kraise/Katana-Style (the latter being more accurate in relation to Dagger-Style). Then people like you came along and started whining that you wanted your very own style. Many fake personal "styles" have come out since then, most notably E-Style which to this day has no clear definition.

D-Style changed the original definition of K-Style to a set of moves limited to a specific weapon class. Calling anything else a style is in direct contradiction of this fact and does nothing but confuse and irritate the community. Everything else is TACTICS.

It doesn't change a damn thing. It doesn't mean your ideas are less valuable or that your "play style" is less effective. It's just a different word. Deal with it.

Again your assumptions are wrong. this thread isnt about me wanting my own style. this thread isnt about introducing a new style. Its about defining objectively what a style is. Your definition does not work as your definition does not encompass style of play but rather only certain moves. Read my origional post. I will know when you do.

Cerb u moron i'm not diamons. quit being a nub niggruh faggot. if you are going to troll me know who i am dumbass. ***ing ezpz.

[Cerb3rus]

wow I'd troll you anyway noob. so ez

[BigD]

I'll like to see C3rb face R3vo

May be interesting.

[Heilex]

Originally Posted by Cerb3rus

IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING? YOU'RE ALL WRONG. I'M BEST, MY WORD IS CORRECT ALWAYS. WANT AUTOGRAPH NOOB?

Cerb can kill 2 stones with 1 bird.

[Heilex]

If Cerb has 5 dollars, and you have 5 dollars, Cerb has more money than you.

[R3volution]

Originally Posted by BigD

I'll like to see C3rb face R3vo

May be interesting.

I may be better than most, but I'm not as good as Cerb.

[BigD]

Originally Posted by R3volution

I may be better than most, but I'm not as good as Cerb.

As I have said. It may be interesting.

I myself would like to fight Cerb or anyone near his Skill just to see what it is like and maybe gain some knowledge.

I'm still waiting for Diamons to 1v1 me :x

[R3volution]

Originally Posted by BigD

As I have said. It may be interesting.

I myself would like to fight Cerb or anyone near his Skill just to see what it is like and maybe gain some knowledge.

I'm still waiting for Diamons to 1v1 me :x

watch videos if you want to see what its like. 's how i learned.

[An Amateur]

~sigh~

While Kiedo is a very inteligent and knowledgeable person on issues retaining to GunZ he can still be very close minded which occasionally makes him look stupid IMO as he cant get past the idea of there being only k-style and d-style. However R3volution you have a similar problem. You are trying to define what a style is in the same way that people on gunzfactor have tried to do before with k-style and d-style.

WHAT IF..

k-style and d-style had been better named the k-method and the d-method. Method implies that the k/d-style-methods are a catologe of instructions to achieve a certain glitch. That they are. They can also be called a style, i grant that, however the term style can be applied more subjectively to include tactics and various other traits in game play and in fashion, etc. This is something anyone with some basic grasp of the english language and a dictionary (or google ;P) can understand.

For various definitions of the word style: define:style - Google Search

As you see, the term style includes a range of suitable uses and is not overly strictly defined.

Originally Posted by R3volution

Its about defining objectively what a style is. Your definition does not work as your definition does not encompass style of play but rather only certain moves.

Members of gunzfactor have already, unsuccesfuly, tried to categorically define what a style is. Thats because, at least partially, they were using the wrong termanology. You are trying to do the same, R3volution, as you are only including certain basic actions in you definition of a style, which excludes certain aspects of play style. Style is a very lax term, it is not a good idea to try and pin it down and torture it like this. (it looks harmles but it may bite back?).

On the issue of tactical guides, play style guides and gladiator guides etc. C3rb has a very good point. Most people do not understand many of the concepts fully and fail even more at applying it. I'm also guilty of this to a certain degree, although on some concpets I have had only the limited writen information as a guide. Tactical guides are not useful for this reason and for the fact that tactics are so varied and if people were to read and adopt those in one guide, others would come up with counter strategies which some people would also need explaining in another guide, this would continue in circles for a long time, perhaps endlessly. I have already read some of Khane's work and it is already a small essay and far from complete. It would become a small book on buttefly alone.

What i believe WOULD have more of an impact is some simple, easy and effective way to enourage people to think tactically, not teach them tactics, but encourage them to learn and develope tactics and counter strategies.

Part of this would mean explaining some concepts better and more understandably than anyone (to my knowledge) has done before and making the information available, angles for example.

Another part of this would mean people learning about "playing to win" rather than by there own rules. By all means move in your own circles and play with your friends with your custom rules, but if someone comes along and flips you and you cannot or will not try to beat them you still lack a certain aspect of skill in that area no matter how good you are otherwise.

To come up with such a method may or may not be practically possible, obviously it would require a lot more time and thought. Perhaps at this point other people should give there input? Its getting late and im loosing my train of thought with such a large post.

[Skyzinha]

Who ARE the top 5 gladiators to date?

I know Cerb and Diamons one of them

[Skyzinha]

Who ARE the top 5 gladiators to date?

I know Cerb and Diamons one of them

[eddy<3]

me, me ,me ,me , and then cerb

[Cerb3rus]

What i believe WOULD have more of an impact is some simple, easy and effective way to enourage people to think tactically, not teach them tactics, but encourage them to learn and develope tactics and counter strategies.

Done it for years. It brought about some big names, but uh. Usually they were all arrogant. Sooo once again, stick to your circle. A circle you take interest in, learn about it and develop more. Have fun doing it.

As far as your "playing to win" article, people beat me all the time. You can throw on the strongest weapon, dbf backwards, flip spam.. fuck, you can EVEN HACK. As long as you see that big "<YOUR> TEAM WINS!" on your screen, it really doesn't matter. You won, right? I just don't see a point in that. It's boring. I'd rather play with people who actually try to advance just for the sake of advancing, and not people who try to advance just enough to be recognized. I like people who keep doing it better and better, instead of me being the only one doing so. But... if you actually believe in "playing to win", then by all means, go right ahead. But you can't expect someone with a LOT more skill than you to actually take you seriously. <.>

[eddy<3]

Originally Posted by R3volution

I may be better than most, but I'm not as good as Cerb.

UR SKILL LVL UPPER MEDIUM RIGHT NOW, RIGHT UNDER JOEL Ab0UT

[Scuba]

and here i thought there might be someone who was past the basics, oh well lmao~

also, hi cerbay and dylan :P