Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" Interesting read, but hopelessly outdated. None of this applies to contemporary multiplayer Tetris.
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" I've had several "anti-downstacking cure kills" applied to me in Tetris DS: someone holds an I and builds a half-screen-tall rectum. Then he slows down and waits for the other player to start stacking, drops an I for a tetris (4 adds), pulls the I out of hold, and drops it (5 adds, including B2B bonus). Follow it with a kick T-spin for another 3 adds, and that can still be a quick kill. "Melting field" is still relevant, to the point where I made a scenario specifically for it in Lockjaw (called "Low Rider" in 0.05-0.31 and "Well height: 8" since 0.32). I'd guess "retaliation" and "trick add" are obsolete only because the popular clients are naive, not recursive.
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" I'm glad you saved these relics seeing how HF's site has been down for ages. I used to be a huge spindizzy fan. He owned me hard.
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" Heh heh, I've never heard anyone use the term "killing artist."
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" Just go to http://www.archive.org and enter hellfire.darktech.org
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" Just a few comments after reading it. This one still applies to modern variants but it has changed its form a bit. Strong players nowadays don't seem to stack up for multiple tetrises at once, and so the condition for this type of kill is rarely met. The more players in a game, the more cautious one would be. Instead, the impact lies in the fact that the player will not be able to downstack in time from such a misdrop because he most likely won't have enough I tetrominoes. He has to first stack upwards to get rid of that lopsided tower before he can get down. This is a huge window of opportunity for the opponent to capitalize. It's not so much about the lock-in for the instant skill but more about pushing your opponent just beyond the brink of recovery. I'd argue that "forcing" a second mistake is a subset of every type of kill. That aside, applying pressure on the opponent with gradual but constant garbage (add) flow works best in games with purely random garbage. This is a technique to keep your opponent at the same field height. As he clears down, he's getting boosted back up. As long as you don't mess up your attack flow, your opponent will be trapped in a perpetual cycle of defense. Mistakes that follow will only boost him higher or outright kill him. This timing technique in general works great in games where garbage is frequently aligned. I've often referred to this as a garbage spike, but the spike doesn't have to just come from your opponent. A sudden spike gives the opponent little time to react. It works even better in retaliation when your opponent has no lines of defense in games with garbage countering. This seems to only apply to games with tactical garbage. That is, garbage that the player can directly influence aside from the timing and the amount sent. Two examples that come up in my mind are the garbage that is shaped like the pieces used to clear the line (ala TGM) and TOJ where you can manipulate hole alignment depending on the type of line clear. However, it seems that this type of killing technique has become secondary in modern implementations and most players don't consciously attack with such a frame of mind. One place where such a technique still remains somewhat primary (but in a different form) is in games with items that can alter the opponent's field. In item games, the true objective is to just ruin your opponent's field and finish him off. This seems to be a variation on the retaliation kill. It's primarily garbage spiking and then applying pressure to keep your opponent where you want him. I agree that reputation and intimidation plays an important role in a matchup. However, I disagree that it makes you a better player by any means in terms of improvement. If anything, it makes the opponent play worse. Regarding yourself as larger than life can be a huge mistake. Overestimating your ability will ultimately lead to your downfall. Confidence in your ability is not a bad thing but you shouldn't rely on a name to give you instant superiority. It's true that being part of a community, clan, etc. can help you play better, but that can be attributed to players helping each other out. When you hang with a strong crowd, you start assimilating.
Re: The Multiplayer Strategy of Thomas Ekstrom, "How to kill" Corrosive, why didn't you post "How to Win"? That's the best one!
