Dudes... my machine had a melt-down last Saturday, just got it back up and running today, tough it's like 1:30am EST. Anyways, I should be back on board for next weekend. Any vids from the last session?

edit: also, are you gonna show up for the mbac ranbat tonight at 8 EST xor?

I'm not too  big on MB, I don't have the PC version either. I have played it though (for the PS2).

Sorry I missed another one guys... too much going on these past two weekends. Hopefully I'll be around for the next one though. Looks like some good matches took place this round. Raz, what that you as Jae? (Nice footwork whomever that was).

Got good news... and bad news...

let's start with the bad, I'm not gonna make it tonight... (that may actually be good news for some of you)

good new is, it's for a good enough reason. Got me some Halloween Honey on deck.

Don't wait up for me.

This is a game from my childhood (mid-80's), I don't know what sytem it ran on, but it was definitely for a computer (Amiga, Macintosh, etc.). The game was in full color if that helps. All I can remember about it was that it was a medieval fantasy game where you played a knight or something similar. And you traveled across an overworld map meeting challenges and such (sorta like mini-games). For example one had you trying to escape from a pit by jumping on platforms to reach the top and get out. Another had you crossing a bridge (oriented at a 45 degree angle) trying to dodge past a troll. I've been searching for this game for years, as I only ever played it at my friends house, and really would like to see it again. If anyone has any idea, please fill me in. Thanks.

The only thing I would probably add is that if you know your connection sucks up front, you can always choose not to play in that ranbat. And thus not being on the roster means no one is going to get extra points for you bailing out. But as soon as you agree to play, you're obligated to play everyone, or take a universal hit for bailing mid-tourney. So it may be wise for people to test their connections out a couple minutes before the match-ups start.

The only other option, which might be a little more fair to people to genuinely lose their connection (i.e. meaning they didn't want to bail, but did against their will) is to only count matches that take place. So in my three man example from my last post, Player A would get zero points (0/2), Player B would get one (1/1), and Player C would get one (1/1). But this of course would require some more in depth calculations, as at the end of the series people will all have different ratios based on the number of battles they actually fought. So it's probably not worth it to pursue this method for the current tourney (obviously a person with a 1/1 ratio shouldn't be able to top a person with a 99/100 ratio).

I'm just throwing this stuff out there for people to consider and think about for future tournies etc. I'm not knocking anyone for the last ranbat, but it is nice to have a clearly defined method of handling these types of situations. Because as unfortunate as it is... these things do happen.

Let us talk for a minute about... bail outs.

I would like to have this issue a 100% resloved by the next ranbat this Saturday. If you are unsure of the issue at hand, let me elaborate. There are times when a person will show up, and for one reason or another leaves mid tourney. Either their connection drops, or they decide the need to get to sleep for an event the next morning, or whatever. Point being they played against some people, and not others.

Where is the issue you ask? Let's take a three player scenerio (Players A, B, and C). Since these ranbats are round robin, Player A may lose to Player B, a couple minutes later Player B bails, but never got the chance to play Player C. So Player A fights Player C and loses. Player A now has two losses, and Player C has what? Exactly... that's the issue.

Now during the last ranbat, it was quickly decided that if a player bailed, any player he hadn't fought would get automatic wins (sort of like a forfeit). Which in the above example would give Player C two wins? yet he only fought one battle? Why should Player C get free points while Player A takes a double loss? Quite simply it's not balanced, it works against those people who genuinely fought and lost, while at the same time grants others freebies for doing absolutely nothing.

It's my opinion that if a player bails, we all get winning points against him reguardless of whether we fought or not. This puts a penalty squarely against the person who is bailing (so they can't just bail last minute and have nothing count against them). At the same time it doesn't take away or give advantage to any of the players who stuck around.

Post your agreements, disagreements, and suggestions; and let's decide how to handle this in the future.

Well I'm in... but since we're on the topic of tournament standards... and just a heads up so no one gets surprised... I don't do that warm up crap anymore. Just like boxers don't go a few rounds then decide to start the real fight. If you want to fight me a day or two in advance, that's cool, I'm all up for it. But once it's match day, it's freakin on like Donkey Kong! (you know, I never really got that expression... I always kinda liked Mr. Do! better)

P.S. Necrid, I think you left out the CTRL+SHIFT+F10 step of setting the DIP switches under Kaillera.