LR: PACT 3 Rules

[NiX]

Paano ba yung sa formula front? Basta preferably one of each leg-type parin.

[Lord_Leperman]

Formula Front just does not allow you to use the same parts, not leg types. However there are clones of commonly used parts to ease the design process (such as the GULL and GULL2, the FUDOH and GUNDARI).

[ex nihilo]

Formula Front just does not allow you to use the same parts, not leg types. However there are clones of commonly used parts to ease the design process (such as the GULL and GULL2, the FUDOH and GUNDARI).

Not to mention the KONGOH and USUSAMA, the TPs, the G91 and G97, VULTURE2 and 3, FURUNA and KASYO, ANANDA and MOKUREN...

Though designing ACs with no common parts should prove to be a challenge for most of us...

It'll also force us to use hovers...
Ack...
Fast, but low armor (except for some)...
Better work on Z. Knight's counterpart, then...

Unfortunately, the low armor and max leg weight is a deterrent from using hovers...
Then again, you don't need armor if nothing can hit you...

[Lord_Leperman]

In addition to the new setup, a new rule:

"If a player ends up outside the arena for the first 30 seconds of the game, he can opt to restart the match without penalty. The same player who ends up outside the arena for the second time during the duration of the 2nd fight will have his whole AP deducted from the score as if his own AP reached 0."

This was done to at least give accidental out-of-bounds incidents some balance (Its kinnda wrong for someone to have a 7000AP score at the beginning of the first round especially because it was because of simply stepping out of the arena), as it would give one player an overwhelming advantage because of an accidental mishap. The system is in effect for the first 30 seconds of a match to prevent abuse by losing players half-way through a fight.

Yay or nay?

[maitreya]

Nix says he's for it. I guess I'm for it too.

[Serene]

In addition to the new setup, a new rule:

"If a player ends up outside the arena for the first 30 seconds of the game, he can opt to restart the match without penalty. The same player who ends up outside the arena for the second time during the duration of the 2nd fight will have his whole AP deducted from the score as if his own AP reached 0."

This was done to at least give accidental out-of-bounds incidents some balance (Its kinnda wrong for someone to have a 7000AP score at the beginning of the first round especially because it was because of simply stepping out of the arena), as it would give one player an overwhelming advantage because of an accidental mishap. The system is in effect for the first 30 seconds of a match to prevent abuse by losing players half-way through a fight.

Yay or nay?

Yay!
It's very good balance.
Chimpanzee with four thumbs up!

[Grim]

I didn't take too much of a liking to the new way of scoring matches. On paper it sounds swell, but yesterday it showed a side of itself that we may not have anticipated: it kills the excitement. Like say for example, your opponent won once, and you won the next round. Let's say he has something of a lead like 4234 AP. Once your life goes down that number the match is as good as over, and there's really no more point to continue.

This is not to mention that while it does provide for an advantage to players who attack, the actuality of it is that few actually do, for fear of having their AP lead or their chances of catching up erased. Less action, more... hiding.

I suggest for future PACTs, we reinstate the regular way of counting wins.

[Serene]

The new rule was good. But still has loopholes. Maybe we could just to back to the old system.
2 types of AC's would have a slightly higher advantage over the others due to AP Lead:
Queens - Because of their very aggressive offensive tactics.
Rooks - Because of their defensive approach to matches.
Knights - We've seen the result of this happening. Peek-a-boos all over and a midmatch first hit.
Bishops - Haven't seen a solid one yesterday. Range would be hard to maintain in such matches, though a Fenrir shotgun is painful.
Kings - It would be very hard to come close in such matches, because it's like a game of tag but the one you're chasing's throwing stones at you.

[NiX]

I didn't take too much of a liking to the new way of scoring matches. On paper it sounds swell, but yesterday it showed a side of itself that we may not have anticipated: it kills the excitement. Like say for example, your opponent won once, and you won the next round. Let's say he has something of a lead like 4234 AP. Once your life goes down that number the match is as good as over, and there's really no more point to continue.

This is not to mention that while it does provide for an advantage to players who attack, the actuality of it is that few actually do, for fear of having their AP lead or their chances of catching up erased. Less action, more... hiding.

I suggest for future PACTs, we reinstate the regular way of counting wins.

That's how Tim and I felt too.

I think the best format we've used so far was the one in PACT 3 Part 1, complete with an actual losers bracket.

[maitreya]

I think the best format we've used so far was the one in PACT 3 Part 1, complete with an actual losers bracket.

Then let's keep the card randomized system. Or some other randomized way of choosing maps like using a random number generator.

[Sforza]

What about keeping the new AP-based format for one-AC type tournaments?

And then we can go back to the former PACT 3 2-win w/ loser bracket format for the multiple leg AC tournaments?

That's only if you guys really want to go back to the old format though, because personally I'd rather pick fairness over fun in competition. Meaning, if there's a system that allows for judgments based on overall skill and design, then I'm all for it. Even people who are losing by quite a large margin can still come back if they're really good at piloting only specific designs. I think it might even be more exciting if they manage to do that.

...Love the random map rule though. I wonder who thought of it! I ought to thank that guy

[Serene]

What about keeping the new AP-based format for one-AC type tournaments?

...Love the random map rule though. I wonder who thought of it! I ought to thank that guy

This is something I thought of as well. It's just right for one AC matches. Because basically, having multiple AC's and having none of them reused made quite a flaw.

[Lord_Leperman]

Well, at least we've tried it out and know it kinnda fails miserably. But I did really enjoy the random map selection. Its like a wild card/Russian roulette before the match :p Anyway, I do hope we keep that.

As for the new system, going back to the old system in PACT 3 might be a nice thought once again though I still like the idea of making multiple ACs with no similar parts, but its fair for its usage which allows for the usage of all 3 ACs might indeed be questionable.