Current time: 11-24-2024, 10:50 AM
PACT Regulations for LR
#16
While I told Nix earlier that I would be willing to concede on the Pegs on less used boosters, I thought about it some more and I am against it. Even on the Birdie, B81, or Gull, the Pegs provide too much of a boost in acceleration to a non-tank AC. Therefore, if a player wants to, he can literally just get in a few hits on the other guy and just run for the rest of the match, and win. Yes, it's quite cheap, but it's a legal tactic nonetheless.

Pegs on hovers though, I'm kinda on the fence. I mean adding Pegs will make hover ACs near impossible to hit, but then again they do run hot as they are (thereby making the addition of Pegs place more burden on cooling), as well as having little defense in the first place. Add to that the fact that them Pegs are really heavy... maybe we can allow them.

On the matter of the H3s, I look at them this way: even if they're single-wielded, it only takes around 3 or 4 hits from one to put an AC in OPD IIRC, and less so if there's another gun firing at them. Therefore, once a player gets hit, no amount of emergency cooling will get them out of the situation that the aggressor has put them in. I'll test it some more to see, but right now I'm for banning them completely. If anyone has immediate information regarding this though, please correct me.

I agree with hangered blades on the UA.

I agree with shields on the Loris and Lemur2.

I agree with lefty guns on the Loris and Lemur2 if the right arm has only a parry blade, or (!)no gun at all(!).

To have more direction in this thread, I think we should sort out the banned maps first. Can anyone please post the complete list of maps available in i-Link play? We'll pick and choose from there.
Reply
#17
In my post, I've covered most of the questionable maps. Check it out.

---> NiX posting

---------------------------
NiX and I agree that the PEGASUS is bannable. The added acceleration is too much for most boosters. Unless, of course, the player plans on using B69 or B72T; B69 or B72T plus PEG don't seem to be too cheesy. In other words, if its those two boosters are used, then it doesn't have to be banned. Also, tanks + PEG is not bannable. Hovers + PEG is bannable too.

H3, even if single-wielded, is bannable. Combined with other high-heat weapons, genbusting can be easily done, and maintained. However, high cooling ACs with high heat resistance doesn't seem to suffer severe genbusting vs a single wielded H3. But since most ACs are not high-cooled, they'll be very susceptible to H3's heat attack, thus the ban.
"Numbers are not part of the real world; they're part of something else."

-Prof. Rolly Panopio, UPLB Math Division
Reply
#18
Found a simpler way of re-ranking AC's with just Attack, Defense and Mobility...
Posting when I'm done.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here it is...

[Image: rankingzp8.jpg]

Now for defense...
This chart is based on an AC's Attack, Defense and Mobility, treating Energy Supply, Cooling and ECM Resistance as user preference stats.

I noticed that Azuma blade preferred using a Kujaku instead of a Fudoh, seeign that he feels like he can manage with it, I decided to treat the said last 3 stats as user preference stats....

Attack, Defense and Mobility are the most used and focused on during battles, that's why I decided to use just those 3 as reference for the ranking chart, sorting matches this way...
DvsD, DvsC, CvsC, CvsB, BvsB, BvsA, AvsA, AvsS, SvsS...
This way, highly outperforming you opponent is almost impossible, and I think balances out the matches...
Hindi yung katulad ng sinabi ko kahapon:

Quote:Kumbaga eh, Itapat natin yung AC nila sa kalevel nya, hindi yung parang ipinakain na natin yung noob sa leon...
That way, the only thing that will seperate ravens are their skills...
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#19
Stig! We'll definitely try this out in a tourney setting, see if it works. I'll add something: we need to place all Ss-Bs on one side of the brackets, and the Cs-Ds on the other side, as much as we can while still keeping the brackets balanced, since the majority of designs will run in the B-C range anyway. That way, the winner of a D vs. D matchup won't immediately have to face the winner of an A vs. A matchup in the next round. Kumbaga, gradual yung pag-angat ng ratings ng ACs na kakalabanin mo as you move on.

This way, if a D wins the final matchup against an S design, then we can truly say that skill won that day. If not, then smarts and shrewdness in building would have. LOL

I agree with the map bans so far, except Structure. Structure provides ample space to move about, you could say that when playing this map you just have to be extra careful with the ammunition. Plus those pillars create a very engaging peek-a-boo game.
Reply
#20
Quote:I'll add something: we need to place all Ss-Bs on one side of the brackets, and the Cs-Ds on the other side, as much as we can while still keeping the brackets balanced, since the majority of designs will run in the B-C range anyway. That way, the winner of a D vs. D matchup won't immediately have to face the winner of an A vs. A matchup in the next round. Kumbaga, gradual yung pag-angat ng ratings ng ACs na kakalabanin mo as you move on.

Please Explain...
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#21
I meant this:

[Image: bracketscn9.jpg]

Although now that I think about it, this could mean that we're only delaying the defeat of a C-rank AC against an S-rank one. As I said, we'll need to test this out to see if it will really even the playing grounds.
Reply
#22
Looks good...
But stilll...
I think we can consider the final match an exhibition match between both winners...

Or

We can have 2 champions...
1st and 2nd Grade ?
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#23
Looks good Serene but I'm still somewhat doubtful. Put it this way: Using this system, the ACs that Rick and I used still end up in the B-Class division. Most LR ACs will really end up in this division anyway, so this kinda defeats the purpose.

Why don't we do this:

1. Compile all the ACs used last October 28.
2. Apply Serene's suggested rating to each of the ACs.
3. Check how far each AC got in the tournament ranking.

This way, we can see what AC-rating was most dominant.


My suggestion:

1. Create our own grading system based on how many tiered parts are on an AC.

------------------------------------

Regarding the maps:

STRUCTURE is kinda okay with me but like I said, its roof is somewhat low. Hence, ACs packing an MV, MV2, EMPUSA2, Cluster Bombs, or Dual-Back verts will have their backmounts rendered useless... and I don't think that's fair to them.
Reply
#24
yehey! another meeting, and another opportunity for Bruiser! woot!
FRONT MISSION FOR LIFE.<br><img src='http://tenmou.net/cgi/contribution/img/30.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br><i>RATATATATATATATATATATATA!!!</i>
Reply
#25
Actually, most AC's from last time will end up in C Class...
Most usable AC's in my theory, will end up in A,B and C, in D without OP's and Tunes, and those in S Class can be considered monsters...

If we use you suggested grading system, it may create a little confusion out of the question: "How do you consider a part tiered?"

The other suggested IRS, focuses more on user preference, on what they want to equip and how they want their AC to perform, without restricting comfort, with the winners being declared the best in their class...

Just remember that an AC with tiered parts doesn't mean that it performs well in battle...

Anyway, my suggestion is still a theory, it needs testing before it could be directly applied...

Simulated Preliminary Matches...
D
D

D
C

C
C

C
B

B
B

B
A

A
A

A
S

S
S
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#26
Keeping things moving along, we'll probably get to this proposed ranking during the next meet at DT's house. It would be good if people brought along diverse AC types, by the way. Since hindi naman tourney at maglalaro-laro lang tayo, magandang makita natin yung performance nung system para sa bawat legset.

Anyway, on to the maps: I've played a bit with Structure and Abandoned Base, and I'm conceding on banning them. Structure does have quite a low ceiling. Abandoned Factory... is corny. Tongue

I've also done some testing with the Pegs (with all boosters, and on all legsets), and for the sake of simplicity I'm just for banning them on anything other than tanks or hovers.

I'd like to note though, that even though it was my beginning point in this discussion, maybe it's not entirely good to be catering or babying one specific playstyle after all... that is, our playstyle. If we design a certain AC in a certain way and have a disadvantage in a certain map because of that, then that's the problem of the player, he has to learn to deal with it. Granted, meron talagang maps na tagilid o hindi talaga maayos para laruan (tulad nung Lava map... stupid), pero naniniwala akong kayang lampasan ang 'pagkapangit' ng maps through experinence.

Maybe as we get more and more... uhh... experienced with this whole balancing business and PvP combat in general, we'll be able to allow more and more stuff in future PACTs, maps and parts included.

Differences in opinions? Affirmations?
Reply
#27
Serene, a B, A, or S-ranked AC doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Build any AC that has won any LR tourney and you'll see that they aren't necessarily high in the rating scale. However, you will see that they are running top-tier parts such as the GL, EYE3, RS, or 98L. Don't get me wrong though because some kind of ranking system would be nice.

As for the maps, yes I would actually like it too if more maps were allowed. It's just that some of the maps, because they're too small, become too advantageous for certain types of ACs. Other maps, because of their low ceiling, make it too disadvantageous for certain kinds of ACs. My opinion is that allowing an unfair playing field is no different from allowing the use of an unfair part.

For casual matches, sure, any map is fine. However, in a tournament setting, it would be best if competitors were given equal opportunities within all controllable factors. If something tips the scale too much towards one thing, then that can't be good.
Reply
#28
So far its really confusing, but I'd like to know what parts or ACs do you consider as part of the S, or A classes just to give us a pictiure on how will this rating system would be like?

EDIT: This post is addressd to Serene Tongue
Reply
#29
Just checking Rick, but who did you address that post to?

Anyways, I really think that random pairing is the way to go in a tournament. If you guys want really comprehensive rankings, we can always do a round-robin.
Reply
#30
The rating systen us based on overall design based on the designer/user's preference. I don't consider any part to be in any class. As I've said, its more on user preference.

Kumbaga eh...
Hala Salpak~!
Then see how well it runs in battle...
A crude way of thinking, but still used...

Anyway...
Another purpose for the ranking system is to avoid high performance designs that are actually meant to grind lower performance AC's like GH vs Antlan in the past tourney...

Konti pa lang tayo ngayon to go manilawide -grabe, taas ng pangarap- to actually put the ranking system to work, but if we get used to it early we will be able to appy it even in later generations...
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  PACT Regulations - ACV 1.01 NiX 51 69,524 06-14-2012, 09:05 AM
Last Post: NiX
  ACV PACT NiX 8 15,014 05-08-2012, 07:11 PM
Last Post: farmboy28
  PACT VI NiX 295 351,889 02-25-2012, 02:35 PM
Last Post: Shintetsu
  PACT 6 NiX 36 50,157 01-21-2011, 05:46 PM
Last Post: beastkiller
  PACT Regulations for LR Two-on-Two NiX 143 199,424 10-23-2010, 02:44 AM
Last Post: clonezero
  PACT 5 Discussion Thread NiX 87 146,593 08-05-2009, 10:38 PM
Last Post: Grim
  Future PACT? maitreya 35 42,782 06-17-2009, 03:57 PM
Last Post: Shintetsu
  PACT 4 - Let's go RAVENS! NiX 164 235,943 06-25-2008, 06:44 PM
Last Post: Serene
  LR PACT: Ban Harpy 2? NiX 5 11,856 05-05-2008, 08:44 PM
Last Post: NiX
  LR PACT: Limit Conditionally Banned Parts? NiX 2 7,511 05-05-2008, 08:43 PM
Last Post: NiX

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)