Page 15 of 16

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:15 pm
by Onslaught Six
You cannot with the game of 'Chess,' which has rules, but half of chess is the metagame surrounding chess. You can still easily win that metagame.

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:51 pm
by Dominic
That does it. This thread is officially "internet stereo-type thread".

But, how does one define "meta-game"?

Playing to "not lose", as Sparky mentions above, can effectively provoke a victory by causing an opponent to give up. But, there may also be times it is simply not possible to win for lack of resources.

A player with only a kind cannot win, and is *only* capable of denying an opponent victory by lasting for 5 moves. But, victory is imoossible. Similarly, it is possible to prevent that scenario by never letting one's opponent lose all of their pieces before their king is destroyed. (Simply placing an obstacle before an opposing pawn renders the 5 move rule moot.)

Dom

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:40 pm
by Onslaught Six
Dominic wrote:That does it. This thread is officially "internet stereo-type thread".


No.

Anyone who thinks the Death Star wins is clearly a Nazi.

'Now' it's the Internet Stereotype Thread.

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:43 pm
by Sparky Prime
Dominic wrote:As for playing to a stalemate, I recall that episode. Making an enemy quite in annoyance, or make a mistake due to impatience is one thing. But, in the case of King v/s King, you simply cannot win. Nobody can.

That's the thing though... You're looking at it from simply the perspective of winning and loosing or in this case, a stalemate. JT's point is, as I understand it and Onslaught Six says, the 'metagame' surrounding the match which may have another outcome than the game itself.

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:09 pm
by Onslaught Six
To use a surprisingly relevant TF example, take the video game that G1 Prime participated in in the Marvel comics. Prime technically "won" the game, but by sacrificing his principles to do so, he "lost" in real life and proceeded to kill himself.

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:20 pm
by JediTricks
Dominic wrote:What I am saying about Hotrod/Rodimus/whatever is that he was a variable on the field. Yes, he was an idiot. But, he was as useful idiot for a guy like Megatron. Despite being tired, Megatron had the presence of mind to use the little twerp as a shield.
And what I'm saying is he was an artificial variable, not one that fit the situation. They had to shoehorn him into that position in a sloppy manner.

My point wasn't proving who wins or loses, just that there's nothing else to do on the chessboard but fight. Whether or not that ends in a draw depends on the intellect and abilities of the players.
King v/s King is unwinnable for both parties, regardless of skill.
This is why I said chess was a shitty metaphor. If we were talking about Megatron vs. Megatron, or Optimus vs. Optimus, where the players are exactly evenly matched and can only move in exactly the same ways, then your comment has any meaning. For this discussion, however, it has none.


Sparky Prime wrote:
Dominic wrote:King v/s King is unwinnable for both parties, regardless of skill.


You're reminding me of TNG episode "Peak Performance". Data couldn't beat Sirna Kolrami at the game Strategema, so instead he altered his strategy to settle for a stalemate. Eventually Kolrami quit in frustration. As Data explains his 'winning' that match is all a matter of perspective.
Haw! Season 2, where Data didn't beat him, he "busted him up". :p I didn't remember Kolrami having a first name, and I'm a major Trekkie, so either kudos to your memory or shame on you for looking it up. ;)

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:22 pm
by Sparky Prime
JediTricks wrote:Haw! Season 2, where Data didn't beat him, he "busted him up". :p I didn't remember Kolrami having a first name, and I'm a major Trekkie, so either kudos to your memory or shame on you for looking it up. ;)

LOL.... Well I actually saw the episode recently but truth be told I did look it up, mainly because I wasn't sure how to spell it. :P

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:20 am
by Dominic
And what I'm saying is he was an artificial variable, not one that fit the situation. They had to shoehorn him into that position in a sloppy manner.



Now you are criticising the writing in the movie. And, while I would agree it was a sloppily written story, Hotrod' suse in the movie still works as an example of other combatants and field conditions influencing the outcome of a battle.



That issue of the comic where Prime lost in a video game was terrible on so many levels......lovely Nick Roche reprint cover aside.

Dom

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 5:38 am
by onslaught86
The problem with your assumption, Dom, is that it assumes the two forces meeting in canonical in-universe environments, not fighting in a hypothetical void. If the Death Star and Unicron are to meet with outside factors, it can be assumed that Star Wars and Transformers have crossed over as a whole - what's to say there isn't an army of rebel Autobots and Imperial Decepticons and who knows what else would result? That's quite the different approach from "What if Unicron fought the Death Star?"

That's not to say it's not just as intriguing. Just what sort of alliances would you assume to be made if Generic Crossover-Standard G1 were to be thrust into the Star Wars universe?

Re: Armada Unicron

PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:43 am
by Dominic
It would depend on "when" in terms of SW the cross-over happened. And, how closely the factions worked together. For example, the Autobots might start off working with the GAR. Or, they would help the non-Sith elements of the Seperatists.

The Decepticons might be consistently against the human regimes. But, they would be willing to work with say...the Genoshans.

Dom
-really wants to see a TF/Trek crossover.