03-08-2010, 10:29 PM
EOs didn't feel like a big deal to me. They've always been overshadowed by standard cores anyway. Then again, we didn't really test a team of damage-racing E2 ACs. I don't think much of it though.
PACT Regulations for LR Two-on-Two
|
03-08-2010, 10:29 PM
EOs didn't feel like a big deal to me. They've always been overshadowed by standard cores anyway. Then again, we didn't really test a team of damage-racing E2 ACs. I don't think much of it though.
03-08-2010, 11:23 PM
EO might be a substitute for double wielding, although much weaker.
(03-08-2010, 06:56 PM)taurustrin Wrote: btw, they have 1 of same problem, when open EO(s) to support, they can make you hot easily. (I don't know why anyway) That is discharge heat, back in the AC3-ACSL days just firing the EO can overheat your AC (Especially the CCL-02-E1 a.k.a. CR-C98E2), but it is not as apparent in LR and is a hidden stat. IMO the only EO cores that are worth the drawbacks are the CR-C89E for its above average accuracy and the C01-GAEA for its sheer firepower.
03-09-2010, 10:13 AM
What really makes the E2 threatening is that it nearly matches the damage rate of the 1HP.
Firing interval: 14 Attack power: 160 x 2 = 320 +Accuracy Unless somebody is planning to abuse EO(E2 in particular), I think banning it wouldn't hurt.
03-14-2010, 02:10 PM
Haha, Taurus. I know what EO cores do. I just meant I haven't used them in PvP matches over 100 times to really have a good solid concept of how well they all perform vs real people. For example, everyone dislikes the E2 core, yet its bonus damage seems to be worthless compared to what the U4 gives you in AP/Defense/Cooling and so on. Who would win in a fight? E2+Shade or U4+Shade? I can't actually say, since I haven't gone and tested it with real people.
It's murky waters for me.
03-14-2010, 05:39 PM
An AC with a E2 could strip off roughly 2k-2.5k of AP on a lightly armored AC.
Having 2 focus fire on one (since it's the most used approach) with just their E2s screams AP rape already.
'Signatures are overrated.'
03-14-2010, 11:44 PM
Like I said, I don't think much of the E2. Great EO for shitty stats. I'd honestly enjoy seeing someone try and abuse it for the tourney. Maybe an MG-arm + E2 AC.
Do it!
03-15-2010, 09:39 AM
agree with nix.
Also, the ac's that are to be hit aint gonna just stand there and ask for the hits. movement of course is part of it, and just a decently fast ac could literally dodge most of e2's and the accompanying weapon's shots.
Unfortunately even a "decently fast ac" had a hard time dodging shots during your last tourney. Tanks and even heavies may have a hard time dodging E2 shots from 2 ACs. That's why I've been suggesting that you only allow at least 1 per team. If you couldn't care less about the E2, they why is it too hard for you to ban it. You seem to be more interested in implementing cosplay rules(ban ext missiles, no tuning?) rather than try to balance the 2vs2.
The C98E2 has been included in ban lists countless times already. Sure it has crappy stats, but it's damage rate clearly outweighs that.
The extensions and tuning issues aren't even up for discussion anymore. We've decided to keep them. It was only an idea thrown in the air.
I am not a committee. I'm just a loud voice on this thread, but I don't decide for this community. And very few care enough to even bother to voice out an opinion. So far with have 2 for E2 and 2 against it. Either way, it isn't a huge deal to me. I checked out Momo's LR rules for 2-on-2 Google translated: Quote:"Map game" They do employ a 1-per-team EO rule. But they've also slowed the game down by limiting the boosters. They also seem to have a rule about missiles and extensions, but I don't really get the translation. EDIT: Apparently, they also limited missiles packs of any kind (+ extensions) to 1 person per team. Makes sense to me too since heavier ACs just melt under dual RM3 bombardment. Oh and from reading that, I just remembered that we'll also thin down the map selection to about the same as theirs. We tested and found that it's those maps that lag the least.
03-15-2010, 11:53 AM
hmm..we can just test it and see how it goes?
03-15-2010, 12:02 PM
Pretty much how this always goes.
The missiles thing, we've already tested. ACs really do melt under double missile pack bombardment. I'm actually more concerned about that than about EOs. I don't mind if we just borrow the JP rules and limit BOTH missiles/ EOs to one per team. (03-15-2010, 11:08 AM)NiX Wrote: Google translated: I think that means that all the following are not allowed: ECM Makers, Micromissiles (マイクロミサイル), Orbit cannons (オービットキャノン), Pursuit missiles (コンテナミサイル), and all left arm guns except for rockets, shields, and blades. All of these rules are similar to PACT rules, but pursuit missiles? WTF?
yes and ban certain color schemes too!
Saves idiots from getting themselves killed prematurely D:
whargarrblwhargarrblwhargarrbl!
Alright so I actually did some testing.
I found that a quick-turning light that can constantly stay within 150m equipped with a rapid-fire arm weapon and an EO core can indeed achieve DPS similar to double HP. I used SYLPH, HP, and PIXIE3 as test weapons. E2, 89E, and GAEA performed really well. URANUS still sucks, while SELENA, though good, is simply not for DPS. So based on that and the JP rules, and with the recommendation of JE, I propose that we ban E2, GAEA, and 89E. SELENA is more of a defensive EO. Leperman and I also pretty much agree that RM3 should just be banned. Too spammable. And RM3 from a blind side just kills too quickly, as we already tested. As much as possible, I'd like to avoid 1-per-team rules because they're really hard to implement since we only decide pairings on the day itself. So with all that considered, I propose our new 2-on-2 rules: No ECM pods No H3 handguns No HARPY2 No TP Boosters No left arm equipment aside from blades and shields (An extra blade or shield may still be hangered) No ROC4 and HP in hangers No hangered weapons in UA core except for blades and shields. Does not apply to tanks. No RM3 No GAEA, 89E, and E2 No LEMUR2 and LORIS. Does not apply to hovers and tanks Allowed Maps: (least lag) CYBER SPACE MILITARY DISTRICT BORN CITY |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
PACT Regulations - ACV 1.01 | NiX | 51 | 69,579 |
06-14-2012, 09:05 AM Last Post: NiX |
|
ACV PACT | NiX | 8 | 15,043 |
05-08-2012, 07:11 PM Last Post: farmboy28 |
|
PACT VI | NiX | 295 | 352,379 |
02-25-2012, 02:35 PM Last Post: Shintetsu |
|
PACT Regulations for LR | NiX | 316 | 414,341 |
12-18-2011, 12:40 PM Last Post: atdsutm |
|
PACT 6 | NiX | 36 | 50,204 |
01-21-2011, 05:46 PM Last Post: beastkiller |
|
PACT 5 Discussion Thread | NiX | 87 | 146,697 |
08-05-2009, 10:38 PM Last Post: Grim |
|
Future PACT? | maitreya | 35 | 42,904 |
06-17-2009, 03:57 PM Last Post: Shintetsu |
|
PACT 4 - Let's go RAVENS! | NiX | 164 | 236,340 |
06-25-2008, 06:44 PM Last Post: Serene |
|
LR PACT: Ban Harpy 2? | NiX | 5 | 11,892 |
05-05-2008, 08:44 PM Last Post: NiX |
|
LR PACT: Limit Conditionally Banned Parts? | NiX | 2 | 7,525 |
05-05-2008, 08:43 PM Last Post: NiX |