Current time: 11-22-2024, 05:51 AM
PACT Regulations for LR
#31
I've been thinking about this for a while, and this is what I have to say: it's a tournament. Everyone is expected to come up with their best designs, even if those designs look like each other because of limited good part choices. If someone wishes to come in a hover, he's free to do so, but no one will expect him to win. If he does, then... wow. That's skill for you.

Yeah, the top tier in LR is definitely a small group of parts, but if you want to win, you'll use them. Not doing so is trying to make a point (that you're good), and it'll only be the end results that will truly say whether you really can hold your own or not.

Basically, what I'm saying is that if anybody came to the tourney having only a gun and a blade, as Antlan and KnightRix did, then that's a big risk that person is taking. But it's a risk he took with (hopefully) full knowledge that many of his opponents would be packing dual guns.

But still, yeah, we'll test this ranking system out. Wink
Reply
#32
<!--QuoteBegin-Serene+Nov 3 2006, 07:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serene @ Nov 3 2006, 07:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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... [/quote:0bb86dbbcb]
In free play, go ahead and use the fun ACs. Everyone's got one of those. However, when it's in a tournament setting, it's time to do away with fun, preferential ACs. In a tournament setting, you have to design with the intention of winning.

Still, it'd be cool to have a ranking system. I guess it'll be like boxing? May lightweights, featherweights, heavyweights, bantamweights, etc! Hehe.

Serene, I'd just like to ask:

Since you said parts used are not tier-based and are all dependent on user-preference, can you then explain to me what in your opinion differentiates a high-performance AC from a low-performance AC (based on you mentioning GH vs Antlan)? Sorry I got confused kasi parang contradicting yung pagkakaroon ng user-preferences pero pagkakaroon din ng mga high-performance at low-performance ACs. I'd appreciate it if that was clarified. Happy
Reply
#33
Oo nga no? Ang gulo no?
Not much actually...

This is what I mean by that...
There is a ranking system...
There are parts that make a good AC...
Choose your rank (at least set a rank limit like and AC Design which may be in D or C when Completed for example), then, build your AC using parts that you want to have in it...

An in-battle High Performance AC has high defense, mobile and delivers great damage in a small amount of time...
An in-battle Low Performance AC, on the other hand only has medium or lower defense, a slightly mobile and shows damage over time...
I disregarded Cooling, Energy Supply and ECM Resistance, because well, these three depends on the pilot because some are GR combos are chosen because of comfort...

Ant's AC is meant to be a blader...
He used the parts he feels like he want to have in his AC, and designed it to match his fighting style...
His AC's chassis breaks easy, and his attack depends on his blade and missiles and a rocket launcher that uses not so much...
It's mobile, yes but against something that's more versatile like G's AC, There turned into scrap...

Further observing the rankings, i find that it -in one way- balances matches a little better... theoretically...
So, even if we set a match between a C and a D rank AC, none of them will greatly outperform each other and the whole match will be carried by skill, as long as both AC's are not a rank apart...
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#34
So if we're not gonna randomize the match-ups, what then is the point of holding a tournament? Winners of AC tourneys should have both the skill to pilot AND the ability to create devastating ACs.

If you want, we can have divisions kinda like they had in MOA

Tank Arena
Quad Arena
Humanoid Arena
Hover Arena
RJ Arena
Blade Arena - all ACs must have a blade equipped on the left arm. (not hangered)

and then we can have a Master Arena for the all-out free-for-all of all AC types.

Any other kind of division system seems too convoluted.
Reply
#35
that idea of nix was good one if there are other ac whose also a tank like me
if you know yourself and your enemy you will never fear the results of a hundred battles if you know yourself but not the enemy for every victory you will suffer a defeat if you dont know yourself neither your enemy you will lose at every battle.<br />sun tzu, the art of war
Reply
#36
Not many of us use tanks, quads and especially hovers...
Next time, we can try out a round robin...
So that everyone gets the opportunity to fight everyone...
'Signatures are overrated.'
Reply
#37
I like nix's idea...

random thought... *just crossed my mind

everyone prepares 5 design for a tournament

CATEGORIES
Tank
Quad
Humanoid
Hover
RJ
blader

then before the match... the referee... picks a category in random. then that would be how the match will be played.

It forces the players to expand their playing style. and tests the piloting and designing skills of each player.

toxic nga lang kay Fox...

+but personally I don't like this either... I have zero know how on other leg types+
just a random thought...
Reply
#38
<!--QuoteBegin-AEA1+Nov 5 2006, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AEA1 @ Nov 5 2006, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->everyone prepares 5 design for a tournament

CATEGORIES
Tank
Quad
Humanoid
Hover
RJ
blader

then before the match... the referee... picks a category in random. then that would be how the match will be played.

It forces the players to expand their playing style. and tests the piloting and designing skills of each player.[/quote:2aee3cf5c5]
The intentions behind this idea are good, but I'm not entirely sure if it's for the best. For one, building different ACs for a tourney kinda defeats the purpose of 'bringing your best.' You'll have many ACs to choose from, and not all of them will surely be on par with each other performance wise. Lugi ka kaagad kapag napili yung legset kung saan ka mahina. We shouldn't really trust the choice of the AC to the referee also, it should really be upon the player himself to choose from the start what type of AC he'll be bringing to the table, depending on his preferences and where he's good at.

Also, building five or six tournament worthy ACs is a lot of hard work. Diffusing designing effort like that tends to decrease the level of polish in designs also.

In my opinion, we should have one and only one entry into tournaments.

On the subject of round robin though, ang problema lang naman talaga diyan ay yung time constraint natin eh, kasi otherwise maganda talagang gawin yun. Kung meron tayong place kung saan pwede tayong maglaro magdamag, round robin siguro ang gagamitin natin lagi. Tongue Kaso, yun na nga, hirap tayo sa oras, since hindi satin yung nilalaruan natin. Kung konti lang ang kasali sa susunod na PACT, or kung meron tayong maayos at mabilis na system for round robins, pwede siguro.

What do you guys think?
Reply
#39
Hahah astig yun Adrian pero magulo.

If you guys want, we can have separate dates for these separate categories.

May day tayo for a tank tournament, a biped tournament, etc.

And then siyempre yung may PACT label, yun yung parang dati na free-for-all of all AC-types, and yun yung talagang tournament natin.

EDIT:
If everyone will agree to a round-robin, everyone will have to cooperate. Kailangan sunod-sunod ang matches, load lang ng file, wala na pag-check ng parts (except at the start, of course), laban agad para sulit sa oras. And siyempre kung round-robin, siguro 1 round each lang... magastos talaga sa oras eh.

Otherwise, brackets with random pairing really is the only way to go.
Reply
#40
Crazy thought: Allow TPs on blader designs?
Reply
#41
That actually crossed my mind, Rick. Like I said before: Anything that'll encourage blading is welcome.

The only real problem will stem from people simply equipping a blade as an excuse to use the TP... I dunno. I'll try to test how abusable it really is against Maitreya. But right now, I'm FOR the idea.

How do the rest of you think of this idea?
Reply
#42
I'm for it, but needs further testing to see if there are any abusable advantages to be gained.

Nix, baka pwede niyong subukan maglaro ng bladers with and without the TP, see how the battles stack up?
Reply
#43
Maitreya and I did some testing on the TP and we're pretty torn about our findings. TP certainly makes blading a lot more plausible, and it's a serious incentive for bladers. But aside from that, TP even without a left-arm gun, still allows for a wide variety of abuses.

Here are some abusive designs that Tim and I came up with (in case TP becomes legal for bladers):

EYE3
U3/UA
LEMUR2/LORIS
FA
KONGOH
F73H
TP Boosters
ANANDA
GAR2
RL
ELF2
MV/MV2
HARPY2
Hangered GHOST or ROC2 if using U3 core

Ayan. Such a design obviously just equips the blade for the sake of being able to use TP. The weapons on it are for maximum backpedalling ability combined with high armor and the great dodging ability and speed of TP. The lack of a left arm gun really decreases its offensive potential though.

Example 2:

S2
Non-OB UL
LORIS
DINGO2
KONGOH
COWRY/LIMPET
TP Boosters
ANANDA
RM3/GAR2
69M
RA
PIXIE3/RS/98L/RL
ELF3
Hangered GHOST

Here's a design that really tries to capitalize on the speed of the TP while keeping good firepower. If such a design opts for the PIXIE3, then it still seems pretty fair. However, if it opts for the RS or the 98L, it has the potential for gaining AP lead and then running throughout the match. With RL, it's still kinda ok.

CONCLUSION:
So after all that testing, I really dunno. An AC with TP is certainly harder to keep in a lockbox. Its evasion also goes up much higher, as well as its ability to position itself. Its offensive capabilities do go down because of not having a left arm gun, but if an AC with TP can keep itself in midrange, and pick away with accurate weapons while dodging fire, that shouldn't matter.

So for me, having TP is certainly a huge advantage, but without a left-arm gun, I'm having trouble thinking of anything that'll make it unbeatable. So right now, I'm still BARELY for it. Maitreya's definitely against it though.

What do you guys think? Do you have any ideas for more abusive designs?
Reply
#44
Good stuff dude. I did some testing on my own on the TP against the AI, and on a really light frame it boosts maneuverability to such a degree that it becomes that AC's defense. Granted, that may not be such a bad thing taken by itself, but like you said, getting in a few pot shots on the competition then running away is totally legal. Cheap, but legal.

Without the TP, on boosters like the Vulture2 and Gull, bladers are OK. They need skill and practice to use, but they're not abuseable IMO.

Here's a quick listing of the setup I used:
Eye3
Cronus
Loris
Vixen
TP/Vulture2/Gull
Miroku
Lotus/G91
Ananda
-
-
-
-
RL/Pixie3
Elf3
-
-

So, I vote against TP. I'm for banning it completely from play.

Oh and BTW, that FA heavy is totally broken lol. Tongue
Reply
#45
Hehe so yeah TP seems abusable no matter what.

But somehow, I really wanna let Bladers use it... hehe.

How about we allow Bladers to use TP under the condition that they can't use LEMUR2 or LORIS?

Either that or we allow TP for bladers but TP must be UNTUNED..? Heheh. TP untuned for heat will be pretty hard to manage. Just some ideas...
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  PACT Regulations - ACV 1.01 NiX 51 69,485 06-14-2012, 09:05 AM
Last Post: NiX
  ACV PACT NiX 8 14,998 05-08-2012, 07:11 PM
Last Post: farmboy28
  PACT VI NiX 295 351,517 02-25-2012, 02:35 PM
Last Post: Shintetsu
  PACT 6 NiX 36 50,124 01-21-2011, 05:46 PM
Last Post: beastkiller
  PACT Regulations for LR Two-on-Two NiX 143 199,270 10-23-2010, 02:44 AM
Last Post: clonezero
  PACT 5 Discussion Thread NiX 87 146,440 08-05-2009, 10:38 PM
Last Post: Grim
  Future PACT? maitreya 35 42,729 06-17-2009, 03:57 PM
Last Post: Shintetsu
  PACT 4 - Let's go RAVENS! NiX 164 235,749 06-25-2008, 06:44 PM
Last Post: Serene
  LR PACT: Ban Harpy 2? NiX 5 11,852 05-05-2008, 08:44 PM
Last Post: NiX
  LR PACT: Limit Conditionally Banned Parts? NiX 2 7,507 05-05-2008, 08:43 PM
Last Post: NiX

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)