Posts: 100
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 321
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2006
![[Image: upeo113pr8.gif]](http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7403/upeo113pr8.gif)
State-of-the-Art
Functionality
Balance
---
"I am more of a Teacher rather than a Pilot"
Posts: 100
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2006
wla p akong naiisip n design e...d p nmn gaano naccra ung heavenstrike
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 21
Joined: Oct 2007
Hala, Shining p-p-p-Pingerrr!!
Finger to death. The champ has spoken!
Posts: 321
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2006
06-29-2009, 12:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2009, 01:06 AM by Moonlight_Raven.)
(06-29-2009, 12:38 AM)EtherMaster_X102A Wrote: wla p akong naiisip n design e...d p nmn gaano naccra ung heavenstrike
woah Dave..paki duster mo yung Heaven Strike at mejo may alikabok na dahil hindi nagagamit...hehehe, ako xempre design inspired pa rin, mejo refined junkie lang nga (inserts ACfA intro soundtrack) wish ko rin kc n mag team-up din tau one day, win or lose..its fine with me pre 
=^.^=
State-of-the-Art
Functionality
Balance
---
"I am more of a Teacher rather than a Pilot"
Posts: 100
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2006
well wla p talaga akong naiisip n design..d p nga ako naglalaro uli ng LR nor casual play on that...in fact ithink i am not suitable again using heaven strike..hardly say that though
Posts: 321
Threads: 8
Joined: Aug 2006
06-29-2009, 01:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2009, 01:13 AM by Moonlight_Raven.)
 *toink* pareho lang tayo pre...hayaan mo, mabubuhay din uli yang dugo mo sa pagpipilot...bwahahaha  *giggles*
(tulog na ako, galing pa kc ako ng toxic na PM duty  )
=^.^=
State-of-the-Art
Functionality
Balance
---
"I am more of a Teacher rather than a Pilot"
Posts: 100
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2006
need zero system.... 
Posts: 7,110
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2006
Steam: Grimlo9ic
Epic: Grimlo9ic
Battle.net: Grim#16773
06-29-2009, 09:54 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2009, 10:06 AM by Grim.)
I moved my vote to 2 on 2 in support of what most members seem to want.  I'm really on the fence about choosing and having randomized partners. On one hand the first enables the team styles to really come out, at the cost of seriousness and balance in the tourney. On the other hand, not knowing who your partner is going to be keeps the tournament semi-serious, but the effect of teaming up is lessened because less amount of time is alloted to create strategic builds. Also, it brings up the problem of practicing together, especially if the two participants are far apart physically.
Hmm... that whole statement kind of leaned towards choosing your own partner.
Posts: 9,097
Threads: 276
Joined: Sep 2006
Steam: nix_rr
06-29-2009, 10:05 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2009, 10:08 AM by NiX.)
So now it's
PACT IV - 6
2 on 2 - 10
Rumble - 5
Since it's not often that RR voting exceeds 20, I think it's almost safe to say that we're going 2 on 2. The only ones I can think of that haven't voted are Adrian and the Yang bros. And even if they all voted for PACT IV, 2 on 2 will still be in the lead.
Posts: 9,097
Threads: 276
Joined: Sep 2006
Steam: nix_rr
07-05-2009, 02:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2009, 02:51 AM by NiX.)
I think it's pretty safe to say that we're definitely going 2-on-2 for this one.
Now on to other issues:
1. Team-up issues --> Go vote and discuss in the other thread.
2. Bracketing format?
3. Number of ACs per player
3.1. Restrictions on ACs.
4. Others.
I like Nerese's suggestion to have everyone prepare 2 ACs. Basically, every team will have a pool of 4 ACs. This way, even if pairing is randomized, having multiple choices for ACs will theoretically allow for more strategic possibilities and will even let teams choose AC pairings for better synergy even without preparing together beforehand.
I just don't know if each AC should only adhere to standard PACT regulations or if a player's 2 ACs should adhere to PACT III regulations.
Discuss.
Posts: 4,348
Threads: 225
Joined: Sep 2006
07-13-2009, 05:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2009, 05:16 PM by Lord_Leperman.)
From what I get in this thread the following people are interested in participating as well as counting the people who voted (Who are able to participate):
Lord Leperman
Nix
Grim
Beastkiller
Atdsutm
Archangel
Fox
Goat
Grimweld09
AEA1
Clonezero
Moonlight Raven
Eithermaster
Haywire
Maitreya
Nerese
Ardjin
DT
Shintetsu
Sforza
However, based on http://ravenrepublic.net/forums/polls.ph...lts&pid=16, we only have 10 people interested.
While I'm not expecting everyone to be participating, hopefully we meet an even number of participants. 10 pairs is doable, 16 players or 8 pairs is good, and based on the reply on the polls we have more than enough. Pairing will be done on the day itself as to accommodate unexpected changes in partnerships. Anyway, we'll see on the day itself how many people will turn up, it also helps that we have a randomized tiering system in place to help forming pairs much easier.
I suggest that people think of multiple designs beforehand in order to have multiple options in complimenting your partner's AC or playstyle. Anyway, as for the number of ACs per person, I think 1 AC per person will suffice for the whole tournament, its much less of a hassle in checking for design restrictions and any balance issues. Otherwise, if people want 2 ACs, its fine by me but I think just having 1 will simplify the organization process.
As for the bracketing, we can accommodate as many pairs as we want. We can have a fairly balanced double elimination tournament with as little as 6 pairs based on the stuff from http://www.tournamentdesign.org/
The website has bracket systems for as little as 6 teams and as much as 16 seeds in a tournament.
Posts: 9,097
Threads: 276
Joined: Sep 2006
Steam: nix_rr
I'm estimating that we'll only have 6 pairs for this tourney. In that case, we'll do 6-team double elimination as laid out here: http://www.tournamentdesign.org/td/czap2e6pv1.pdf
If there are only 5 pairs, it's be 5-team triple elimination to stretch the tourney out a bit more. http://www.tournamentdesign.org/td/czap3e5pv2.pdf
Posts: 7,110
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2006
Steam: Grimlo9ic
Epic: Grimlo9ic
Battle.net: Grim#16773
(07-27-2009, 10:20 PM)NiX Wrote: I'm estimating that we'll only have 6 pairs for this tourney. In that case, we'll do 6-team double elimination as laid out here: http://www.tournamentdesign.org/td/czap2e6pv1.pdf
If there are only 5 pairs, it's be 5-team triple elimination to stretch the tourney out a bit more. http://www.tournamentdesign.org/td/czap3e5pv2.pdf
I suggest you guys download this now and play around with it, since I downloaded it myself but won't be able to go.
http://download.cnet.com/ALJ-Tournament-...20462.html
I SWEAR it'll make the brackets easier, no more manual stuff.
Posts: 9,097
Threads: 276
Joined: Sep 2006
Steam: nix_rr
Aww, and I actually already prepared the handwritten papers for the brackets.
Pero sige, I DLed it already and I'll study it later.
|
( kelangn ko ng magaling n kapatner 
(fully functional na ung 1st AC ko, problem ko na lang ung magiging 2nd design ko...nabobobo na kc talaga ako 
