Jump to content


Photo

New "Arena" Blueprint/Rough Draft


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Arbitor Nox Caelum

Arbitor Nox Caelum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • LocationNorth America
  • AC Type:
    Light-Medium Bipedal. Scouting Specifications
  • PSNID:
    Arbitor_N_Caelum

Posted 11 September 2015 - 01:28 AM

I've seen the threads for the currently existing Arenas (ACVD & Nine breaker Arenas) and decided maybe I could create one. Not really an Arena but more of a system of doing things.

I'm posting this here because it's just a rough draft and I don't yet intend to try to put any of this in play. The reason being that it would require the efforts of many players in the community to run smoothly. Even so, I may as well put it out there. So let's get started.

Name: Global Cortex

Description: It's a system that can hopefully keep the community engaged through the issuing of Raven Licenses. This can be expanded to UNAC Arena Architect Licenses and Team Licenses but for now it's just a good ole 1v1 Arena License.

How it Works:

All pilots start out as unlicensed pilots. During this phase, any AC may be used. Once an unlicensed pilot has defeated 5 other pilots (confirmed kills, UNACs don't count), an unlicensed pilot qualifies for a D Rank Raven's license.

To obtain the D Rank license a pilot must register an AC of their choice. This will be the only AC they are allowed to use for their arena fights. An Emblem will be used to show that it is their registered AC.

°Tiers: Each Tier has a set of Clearing Conditions. Clearing any of these qualifies a Raven for the next Rank/Tier of License.

°Records: Two sets of Records are kept. The Tier Record and the Career Record. The Tier Record keeps track of WINS-DRAWS-LOSSES for a Raven's current tier and resets upon any Entry/Exit of a tier, this includes Entry/Exit via Demotion as well as Promotion. The Career Record keeps track of all WINS-DRAWS-LOSSES throughout a Raven's entire career in the arena. The Career Record resets if a Raven has his license revoked for any reason.

°License Revoking: If a Raven has his license revoked for meeting the D Rank Demotion Conditions, Breaks the 1 AC Rule or breaks any other rules listing License Revoking as the penalty, he loses his Raven title and must requalify and reregister for the D Rank License.

°Re-Registering: Upon requalifying for a D Rank license and reregistering a pilot may register a new AC or the same AC to obtain their new D Rank License.

°°D Rank License/D Rank Tier:
To Clear the D Rank license and qualify for a C Rank license a pilot must:
•Have 3 more WINS than LOSSES on their Tier Record
•Have 2 more WINS than Losses and defeat their Tier Head
•Defeat 4 Different C Rank Ravens.
*Demotion: If at any point a D Rank Raven has 10 more LOSSES than WINS on their Tier Record, their D Rank License will be revoked.



°°C Rank License/C Rank Tier:
To Clear the C Rank license and qualify for a B Rank license, a pilot must:
•Have 4 more WINS than LOSSES
•Have 3 more WINS than LOSSES and defeat their Tier Head
•Deafeat 5 Different B Rank Ravens
*Demotion: If at any point a C Rank Raven has 10 more LOSSES than WINS on their Tier Record, their C Rank License will be demoted to a D Rank License.



°°B Rank License/B Rank Tier:
To Clear the B Rank license and qualify for an A Rank license, a pilot must:
•Have 5 more WINS than LOSSES
•Have 4 more WINS than LOSSES and defeat their Tier Head
•Deafeat 6 Different A Rank Ravens
*Demotion: If at any point a B Rank Raven has 10 more LOSSES than WINS on their Tier Record, their B Rank License will be demoted to a C Rank License.



°°A Rank License/A Rank Tier:
To Clear the A Rank license and qualify for a S Rank license, a pilot must:
•Have 4 more WINS than LOSSES
•Have 3 more WINS than LOSSES and defeat their Tier Head
•Deafeat 3 Different S Rank Ravens
*Demotion: If at any point an A Rank Raven has 8 more LOSSES than WINS on their Tier Record, their A Rank License will be demoted to a B Rank License.



°°S Rank License/S Rank Tier:
The S Rank License is the highest normal Raven License available.
*Demotion: If at any point an S Rank Raven has 6 more LOSSES than WINS on his Tier Record, their S Rank License will be demoted to an A Rank License.



°°°SS Rank/Classification:
To obtain an SS Rank License/Double S Classification a pilot must:
•Have an S Rank License and defeat two S Rank pilots in a Survival match. 1v2 back to back.
•Have an S Rank License and defeat two A Rank or higher pilots in a 1v2 handicap battling both at the same time.
**Demotion works differently for an SS Rank. Upon satisfying the Demotion Condition for S Rank, an SS is demoted to SA. Upon satisfying the Demotion Condition for A Rank, a SA is demoted to SB.
SS>SA>SB>SC>SD>S
Upon returning to normal S Rank license, the pilot may retake the SS Rank test.
An SA rank may return to SS by satisfying Clear Condition for an A Rank.



°°°Dominant Testing: Another special designation. To qualify for Dominant Testing, a Raven must have either an S or SS Rank License and complete a Dominant Test. The Tests are:
•1v3 Handicap. Test Subject faces three A or higher ranked Ravens at the same time.
•1v3 Survival. Test Subject faces 3 A or higher ranked Ravens back to back.
•1v2 Handicap. Test Subject faces 2 SS ranked Ravens at the same time.
•1v2 Survival. Test Subject faces 2 SS ranked Ravens back to back.

Unlike the SS Rank, Dominant status cannot be lost except by having one's License revoked.


°°°°(It should be noted that LOSSES and WINS during the SS and Dominant tests count as 1 on the Tier Record and as such, also count towards the Promotion/Demotion conditions)





Global Cortex Arena Emblem Usage:
•An emblem will be placed in the top left corner of the square signifying that the AC is registered with the GCA.
•An emblem in the bottom right will be placed indicating current Rank.
•An emblem in the bottom left will be placed. It will be an S signifying the SS Rank has been achieved.
•An emblem will be placed in the top right. It will signify that a player has been identified as a Dominant.



>>Witness Rule: A Referee must be present for the battle to count and both sides must acknowledge the battle as an Arena battle in the presence of the Referee. If no Referee is available, a total of 3 witnesses must give matching testimony of the events that occurred during that battle.

>>Accident Clause: Since only one AC can be registered, in the event that something unexpected should happen to the registered AC, all players have 1 Insurance Claim. Register another AC. Having your License revoked does not use your 1 Insurance Claim. Using your 1 Insurance Claim and then having your License revoked does not restore your Insurance Claim.



Edit: Forgot a whole section.
•••Tier Heads: A Tier Head is the Raven at the top of their current Rank/Tier. The position does come with some responsibility. Accepting challenges and keeping track of who is in that Tier. The position would go to whoever has the most WINS, least LOSSES. The position can be passed on if the person doesn't want it in favor of someone who does. There may be additional responsibilities but I'll cross that road when I come to it... or take a different road... or spin in circles in the middle of the road... or... (idk you get the idea).


^^^This is pretty much the large majority of what I've come up with and thought out sorta kinda. As I said, this type of system can be expanded to other Arena types as well (like Architect Arena, Tag Team Arena, Team Arena, etc). Also (as I also said), I'm not currently planning on putting too much effort into this because the size and scope of it will be too much for just me to manage and would require tons of community cooperation. Also... I'm only PS3 NA side sooooooooo...... there's that.

I'm still thinking stuff out like small details and what not. It's just a rough draft. Let me know what you think. Like it, dislike it, any new ideas or changes you'd make to it? Also... (because I felt the post needed another "Also").
Was trying to think of something to put here... Couldn't think of anything... Nope, nothing.

#2 rogan

rogan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • AC Type:
    Cannon whore

Posted 11 September 2015 - 06:25 AM

The only thing I don't like is the one AC rule. Reasons for which have been beaten to death in other threads so I won't go into it. I would just like to know your reasoning behind such a limitation.


Anything can be solved with the proper application of explosives

#3 Sash

Sash

    Fucking Tryhard BR Meta-whore.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • AC Type:
    Based 003 3BR God
  • PSNID:
    @JP SashPerennial
  • LIVE Tag:
    Sash X64

Posted 11 September 2015 - 08:33 AM

> Register one AC

 

> Runs into counter

 

> Never advances

 

Hey look I'm Parry.

 

Alright real talk. There's a reason you defeated the ACs in the Arenas in past games. Locking someone into an AC, especially in a 1v1 environment, does not permit for an accurate measure of their skill. In a game where a matchup can be decided by the presence of one or two AC parts, a locked build arena looks to me to be more a measure of luck.


you fucking tryhard

 Rix-Today at 9:17 PM

I banned someone because they posted porn in a porn topic

 

AvalonFive-Today at 9:25 PM
I like being both top and bottom so the middle sounds nice
 
Kappa

 


#4 DominantLegend

DominantLegend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • AC Type:
    AC Red Sun
  • PSNID:
    DominantLegend

Posted 11 September 2015 - 08:37 AM

From a lot of experience, your #1 flaw here is that you're focusing too much on the structure, and not on the battles themselves and facilitating their strength. 

 

People will entertain the idea of a global cortex style arena, but they won't actively use it because what players are really seeking is 3 minutes of heart-pounding thrilling high-stakes gameplay. Not a slow progression through a series of ranks. The players who got that are the ones who got the most out of the Arena.

 

After all that, you're causing a lot of paperwork for the players who run it, especially with enforcing the AC registration rules.

 

I've been seriously considering re-opening the ACVD Arena under a points/qualifying system and an Email Listhost to handle paperwork for notifying/managing matches. It's biggest flaw was it being a huge time commitment for me, and real life/work comes first (though AC is a close second...). 

 

If I could get an email listhost setup where people can schedule their own matches and notify all other players of the results rather than have to do it all privately through the thread/PM/PSN, then it would be a huge load off my back and I could re-open the arena. 

 

EDIT: Sash has it right. I think the fairest tournament setup for this game is counterbuilds allowed, loser picks next map, and 2 consecutive battle wins is the winner of the match. I would conceded the option for best 3 out of 5 (but NOT 2 out of 3) if both players agree on it in advance, as we have had some arena matches where people played 20 matches without a winner being decided because neither could beat the other person on their best map and neither could risk a hard counter. That's a much better indication of skill, I believe.

 

 

 

HOWEVER

 

really like the idea of a qualification/licensing system for players, even outside of an arena context, where other player's vouching for their skills adds license values to the Player Index as just a way to guess at who is extremely skilled / experienced with the game at a glance, sort of like a peer review.



#5 Arbitor Nox Caelum

Arbitor Nox Caelum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • LocationNorth America
  • AC Type:
    Light-Medium Bipedal. Scouting Specifications
  • PSNID:
    Arbitor_N_Caelum

Posted 11 September 2015 - 10:59 AM

I don't quote well so I'll do it in order lol.

Well, for starters, registering 2-3 ACs per pilot equals double to triple the amount of work and you'd have to keep track of the person's 3 ACs to make sure they're still only using the registered ACs.
Also, it's my nod to the older generation Arena and my experience with it. I only used 1 AC and if I changed it at all, I started at the bottom to make sure it was still useable... primarily against Fixer, that SoB. I'm aware that counter building is a thing but personally it just rubs me the wrong way which is odd because having a cramped severely hurt hand from 30 back to back fights against BB and Ace (each) would be my definition of the good way...
Plus, having only one AC also means having to get really good with that AC to overcome a counter build you may run into.
I know that if two players of equal skill clash, the best build wins which is why I'm considering only locking in the Head, Arms, Core, Legs of each AC and letting inside parts and weapons be changed as needed. Worst case scenario... it turns into a UW Festival. Those things are cool af though so I wouldn't really mind lol.

I answered most of Sash's point too except

Yes it is sorta kinda is mostly luck but I think of it like this:

Who is more skilled? The person that builds a counter AC or the person that can consistently pull wins out the butt vs a build that counters their own.

And LMAO I get that joke.
Here's my parry to you Parry... Where's Parry?

And to Dominant

I'm mostly banking on the errrr "G" factor. Never underestimate the power of a letter to get people to redo the same things over and over again until they get the letter they want .

Idk what an Email Listhost is but that sounds useful AF!! What form of sorcery is this?

And I've been thinking heavily on the pros and cons of 1 AC/2 ACs and it's definitely not an easy area.

Also, what do you mean by facilitating the strength of the battles?



All good feedback btw. It's appreciated.
Was trying to think of something to put here... Couldn't think of anything... Nope, nothing.

#6 DominantLegend

DominantLegend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • AC Type:
    AC Red Sun
  • PSNID:
    DominantLegend

Posted 11 September 2015 - 03:09 PM

Use the [ quote ] tags (without spaces) to separate quote text.

 

Unfortunately, 1v1 doesn't work like how you're describing. What you want to avoid is a situation where:

 
Player A can beat Player B (But loses to player C )
Player B can beat Player C (But loses to player A )

Player C can beat Player A (But loses to player B ).

 

Having locked builds (or even just a best 2-out-of-3 structure) makes this a very likely possibility. For example, Player A uses a midweight with pulse guns and snipers, player B uses a quad with CE missiles and gatling guns, player C uses a heavy with dual battle rifles and a KE shield. 

 

 

 

The problem with counterbuilding is that you can exploit maps or strategies to get easy wins. Therefore, to make a rule set that doesn't use counterbuilding, you need to do two things

 

1. Negate the match victory chances of any one single battle (by demanding consecutive wins, or multiple wins over a long period)

2. Give the loser an advantage beyond counterbuilding (such as map choice). 

 

Which is exactly what the ACVD Arena rules are set up to do. 

 

So the winner of an ACVD Arena match has to be able to beat the opponent in a normal match, and then beat the opponent again when they are stacking the odds against you. 

 

So it's a lesser of two evils. Allow counterbuilding, and negate it's weaknesses, or disallow counterbuilding and assume that matches will be less fair.

 

As for strength of the battles, making the matches themselves as exciting and dynamic as possible so that they don't become boring. A strong rule set will allow people to just in and win without feeling cheated if they lose, while also giving them the freedom to push themselves to their limits.



#7 rogan

rogan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • AC Type:
    Cannon whore

Posted 11 September 2015 - 09:08 PM

I don't quote well so I'll do it in order lol.

Well, for starters, registering 2-3 ACs per pilot equals double to triple the amount of work and you'd have to keep track of the person's 3 ACs to make sure they're still only using the registered ACs.
Also, it's my nod to the older generation Arena and my experience with it. I only used 1 AC and if I changed it at all, I started at the bottom to make sure it was still useable... primarily against Fixer, that SoB. I'm aware that counter building is a thing but personally it just rubs me the wrong way which is odd because having a cramped severely hurt hand from 30 back to back fights against BB and Ace (each) would be my definition of the good way...
Plus, having only one AC also means having to get really good with that AC to overcome a counter build you may run into.
I know that if two players of equal skill clash, the best build wins which is why I'm considering only locking in the Head, Arms, Core, Legs of each AC and letting inside parts and weapons be changed as needed. Worst case scenario... it turns into a UW Festival. Those things are cool af though so I wouldn't really mind lol.
 

Or you don't need to register an AC at all, far less paperwork that way if its really an issue.

 

As to the rest of the post, you really need to look deeper into the mechanics of AC, especially the 5th generation. In older generations people didn't lock themselves into one build outside of a tournament. Even then, the build changed from tourney to tourney. Player skill also played a much larger factor in duels. Back in ACFA I could smash people with dual acaicas on a linstant generator with aaliyah/lahire/ortega/sobrero boosters with 19-20K en recovery. There are a good number of players who were better than me as well. Come 5th generation even if I'm playing a very solid build such as a light reverse joint sniper and I run across an opponent with a KE shield and perhaps a HEAT machine gun I, as the sniper, need truly immaculate play to win. Additionally my opponent has an absurd margin for error. They don't need to be anywhere near as good as I am, just competent enough to understand the game mechanics really.

 

Ultimately this is why the 5th generation is centered around team play. The idea of locking frames and allowing a change of internals and weapons might help, but I doubt it since a lot of the maps and horrid three defense system work together to ensure that effective damage melts an opposing build in seconds.


Anything can be solved with the proper application of explosives

#8 Arbitor Nox Caelum

Arbitor Nox Caelum

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts
  • LocationNorth America
  • AC Type:
    Light-Medium Bipedal. Scouting Specifications
  • PSNID:
    Arbitor_N_Caelum

Posted 12 September 2015 - 12:25 PM

Ergh. You guys have me wrecking my brain for solutions to all that you've said... my head feels worse than when I get brain freeze.
Was trying to think of something to put here... Couldn't think of anything... Nope, nothing.

#9 DominantLegend

DominantLegend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • AC Type:
    AC Red Sun
  • PSNID:
    DominantLegend

Posted 12 September 2015 - 02:22 PM

That's why the ACVD Arena rules are so expansive. 

 

That doesn't even get over issues like "if someone is inactive, do they lose their rank? How do you determine that? etc." It's a logistical nightmare you need a degree in econ/statistics to figure out. 



#10 RomannamoR11

RomannamoR11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • AC Type:
    Bipeds, all pant sizes
  • PSNID:
    RomannamoR11

Posted 23 September 2015 - 06:43 PM

I actually like the one AC registered rule. Build your best and run with it. In all the older ACs, I had one AC that was used the entire time, only switching weapons and such but the core remains the same. This would encourage you to build a well rounded AC that can tackle anything you might encounter. I feel this becomes more about piloting skills paired with your building abilities. Kind of like going into the Arena in older games, their ACs never changed, and earned their spots.
The greatest thing I just read was having the two consecutive victories to call it a win. Why hasn't this been in place since the beginning!?
With a bigger community, this dream could be realized.
My 2cents. Whatever is done, I will join. I enjoy playing this game and will continue to do so.

#11 DominantLegend

DominantLegend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • AC Type:
    AC Red Sun
  • PSNID:
    DominantLegend

Posted 24 September 2015 - 01:05 PM


The greatest thing I just read was having the two consecutive victories to call it a win. Why hasn't this been in place since the beginning!?
With a bigger community, this dream could be realized. 

 

 

If someone wants to handle the logistics I am still interested in re-opening the ACVD arena (which DID have the consecutive win rule from day 1), but it's fairly time consuming.



#12 Sash

Sash

    Fucking Tryhard BR Meta-whore.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • AC Type:
    Based 003 3BR God
  • PSNID:
    @JP SashPerennial
  • LIVE Tag:
    Sash X64

Posted 24 September 2015 - 02:27 PM

I actually like the one AC registered rule. Build your best and run with it. In all the older ACs, I had one AC that was used the entire time, only switching weapons and such but the core remains the same. This would encourage you to build a well rounded AC that can tackle anything you might encounter. I feel this becomes more about piloting skills paired with your building abilities. Kind of like going into the Arena in older games, their ACs never changed, and earned their spots.

 

I do not mean to nit-pick. Something you brought up simply struck me.

 

ACVD is not balanced in a way that permits for a player to use the same AC in all bouts and retain a competitive edge. It is impossible to build, as you say, "a well rounded AC that can tackle anything you might encounter". If it were the case that this could be done, you would be correct in saying that it then becomes more a matter of piloting skill and build knowledge. However, as the situation remains, we may highly likely be pitted against an opponent that must do no more than hold a bead on us and fire back whenever one would attack them to be victorious simply by virtue of either a) buffing our weapons or b) having something which can deal consistent, effective damage to our build.

 

In these cases, the opponent must do very little to be victorious, while his competitor must play almost immaculately to be victorious. If our player were to win, it would be clear that he were more skillful. If our player were to lose, then he would be proven to have a) a worse build and b) less skill than the opponent who simply had a counter-build - this is assuming that the arena were to operate in the one-build format.

 

It would also be inevitable that someone else would come along with a build capable of easily dispatching the competitor who defeated our player in the previous example. If his build did not allow him to defeat us, he would not be able to make it to challenging the competitor which had defeated us who is now a higher rank by virtue of fighting us first. This favors players who enter first to get a high standing and then may rely on players they have defeated to guard them against potential counter builds, which may have disadvantaged matchups against the lower-ranking players' AC's. As more players join the arena, it is harder and harder for them to reach higher ranks because they must necessarily fight through a slew of potential counter-builds.

 

tldr - Single build arena favors initial competitors and does not necessarily reflect the skills of the competitors accurately as it forces players to compete against each other with sometimes very arbitrary advantages via match-ups which cannot be changed.

 

In my opinion, a truer test of skill comes in a player who can modify their playstyle to deal with different threats. Of course, some find it bloody murder to permit for intentional hard-countering to occur in the competitive scene - as do I, but I find equally unfair that it should occur arbitrarily before there has been any fighting done. Logistically, it would be a nightmare to enforce matchups, so I feel that giving players the freedom to chose their ACs, or at least the freedom to chose from a selection of their own ACs with only a ban on the number of times they may change their builds is a better way to go about it. Will C-Building still happen? Yeah. Will you be able to try and do something about it? That's the hope.

 

/end rant.


you fucking tryhard

 Rix-Today at 9:17 PM

I banned someone because they posted porn in a porn topic

 

AvalonFive-Today at 9:25 PM
I like being both top and bottom so the middle sounds nice
 
Kappa

 


#13 RomannamoR11

RomannamoR11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • AC Type:
    Bipeds, all pant sizes
  • PSNID:
    RomannamoR11

Posted 24 September 2015 - 05:26 PM

@SASH Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right. There is no kill all AC. Me and TYPEALEX had this convo awhile back about how we build ACs. Idk what AC you're bringing or what loadout is on it. To me, it doesn't matter. The AC was built with the purpose of running into any situation. If I run into my "counter" build, so be it. Work harder and overcome. Just because theoretically it should be able to beat the AC does not dictate the outcome. Know your limits and expect to see it on the battlefield. Me and TYPEALEX would build an AC and duel it out using counter builds to see how it would stand in a real battle. Once we're satisfied, build was complete. Didn't matter what you brought, AC + Pilot would win. LWs are weak to everything, yet with piloting, they're effective against any. 

Again, you are right, although It makes it a challenge for me to run into my counter, but that's half the fun. 



#14 SwiiTcHBacK

SwiiTcHBacK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • AC Type:
    Light biped

Posted 24 September 2015 - 09:03 PM

@SASH Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right. There is no kill all AC. Me and TYPEALEX had this convo awhile back about how we build ACs. Idk what AC you're bringing or what loadout is on it. To me, it doesn't matter. The AC was built with the purpose of running into any situation. If I run into my "counter" build, so be it. Work harder and overcome. Just because theoretically it should be able to beat the AC does not dictate the outcome. Know your limits and expect to see it on the battlefield. Me and TYPEALEX would build an AC and duel it out using counter builds to see how it would stand in a real battle. Once we're satisfied, build was complete. Didn't matter what you brought, AC + Pilot would win. LWs are weak to everything, yet with piloting, they're effective against any. 

Again, you are right, although It makes it a challenge for me to run into my counter, but that's half the fun. 

 

LWs are strong against everything with slow lock, low muzzle and arguably slow movement speed. 

 

As for locked builds.. Most good players understand that in a locked build scenario you need to have most of your bases covered to get a good win percentage. They also realise it limits both you and your opponent and as such you can discount certain extreme builds as they are terrible in 90% of the games they will play. This means you will not find dual pulse machine guns with AS missiles and do not build/plan around it.

 

The problems start to arise when players have no concept of what is actually good and therefore bring over-all bad ACs which then counter you.

 

As for what sash said about a truer test of skill:  " truer test of skill comes in a player who can modify their playstyle to deal with different threats"

 

There are two ways to play this game. On an intellectual level and on a physical level. Playing the game by building the right AC to compete and beat your opponent in the arena of choice and then changing so you can't be countered next game or sticking the same once you expect them to counter you is on the intellectual side. Often favouring tactical awareness and positioning so you don't have to make fancy moves in order to win. Playing the game by trying to outplay your opponent through movement, reactions or precision is the physical side. From what I've seen of you you seem to value the intellectual side more.

 

While I believe you are correct in that statement is the one that leads to the most success. I would not say it's a truer test of skill. In fact I think many of the less successful players are arguably more skilled in their own ways in almost every game I play. The successful players are often lazy due to using the dominant strategies and therefore their mechanical skill either doesn't improve or even weakens. The innovative players keep their skills honed because they have to in order to compete or just because they relish a challenge. In V, I spent a lot of my time trying to push my mechanical skill but once I wanted to be competitive, I had to play things that were objectively strong to compete. Since then and particularly in VD, I didn't have much motivation to do so and my ability to play stagnated. 



#15 RomannamoR11

RomannamoR11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • AC Type:
    Bipeds, all pant sizes
  • PSNID:
    RomannamoR11

Posted 25 September 2015 - 10:28 AM

@SWITCHBACK "The problems start to arise when players have no concept of what is actually good and therefore bring over-all bad ACs which then counter you." 

Not sure I understand this statement. So someone builds a bad AC, that turns out to be a counter, and is now a good AC? If I couldn't beat an overall bad AC then the fault lies with me, not the designer. 

 

"As for locked builds.. Most good players understand that in a locked build scenario you need to have most of your bases covered to get a good win percentage. They also realise it limits both you and your opponent and as such you can discount certain extreme builds as they are terrible in 90% of the games they will play. This means you will not find dual pulse machine guns with AS missiles and do not build/plan around it."

My thoughts exactly. Let's see that "counter" build last against every type of opponent, not just that one . Everyone will have a well rounded AC. Now that is a positive.

I don't see how it limits my build. Let's say I choose to use that specific "terrible" build; dual PMG with AS Missles. I go out and score wins against multiple types of opponents (not likely, but possible). That didn't limit me in the least. I knowingly chose this build, albeit a build that cannot be changed from its current setup. 

 

I agree with SASH's statement and it actually reaffirms what I said. "truer test of skill comes in a player who can modify their playstyle to deal with different threats" PLAYSTYLE is the key word, not the design of the AC. So in your reasoning, this would be the physical side of gameplay, which I agree. I only disagree with you in that I value the Intellectual side more, which I do not. If I stay with my one build facing different types of opponents, I would have to adjust my PLAYSTYLE to overcome. My AC and Weapons loadout remained constant. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I innovate along with the rest of them. I try unused weapons and builds and see how I can make them viable. In V, I ran a dual shoulder auto attack gun, dual lamp build that racked consistent kills, even against stacked KE builds (Doesn't work as well now lol. It was funny). 

I don't mean one locked build for the entirety of the ACVD game, only for this specific Arena layout. I like Cheng's Tourney also where no Dual wielding is allowed, nor dual shoulder slot. It makes building the AC more challenging, and even more to get it to work. I tire of dual subbed, dual sniper/BR combos already and dual sawa builds. Creativity was over once people found they can make these work, ie the Meta game. Nowadays no one can take credit for any of their builds, it's all a Meta copy.  

I doubt any of my ACs would be considered good to any of you, but they fit my playstyle. I've tried piloting some of TYPEALEX's builds and what works for him, doesn't work for me. I would get trashed around. Switch to Alex facing same opponent same map same AC, he trashes opponent. I don't trust nor use any Meta builds. Good luck to those who do, you will not win...

 

Man, I need to organize my thoughts here. I'm jumping around a lot. Anyways, enjoy the read, give me feedback



#16 SwiiTcHBacK

SwiiTcHBacK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts
  • AC Type:
    Light biped

Posted 25 September 2015 - 12:46 PM

You won't score wins with the terrible AC against anybody good because they don't work aside from the odd extreme counters you can get through other people using builds that don't take into account something that is only good in such a small range of matchups. It would be trivial to beat you.

 

"So someone builds a bad AC, that turns out to be a counter, and is now a good AC? If I couldn't beat an overall bad AC then the fault lies with me, not the designer. " The AC is bad because it cannot fight 95% of the usable builds in the game, but will absolutely stomp the 5% that are weak to it. It is bad in 95% of matches, good in 5%.

 

I only replied to you with the first half. The rest was to sash. So I didn't say you valued the intellectual side more..

 

"I don't trust nor use any Meta builds. Good luck to those who do, you will not win..." Except they do.. The majority of the time.



#17 rogan

rogan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • AC Type:
    Cannon whore

Posted 25 September 2015 - 03:14 PM

This counter build thing has been beat to death in many other threads. It boils down to build and AC type having a larger impact on game than player skill does the majority of the time. Now, I can name a few players who have specialized to a degree that those individuals are very scary to compete against regardless of what build out have, barring shields, but that is a very small number. I can count them on one hand, without using all my fingers. Hence the focus on teamplay.

 

The part of this discussion which does interest me is this "generalized build". Which you appear to claim gets good performance across the board, even when fighting counter builds. Additionally that this build caters very specifically to your playstyle. I haven't played in a while, (Blame bloodborne and scholar of the 1st sin) so many this is more recent, but these generalization builds tend to be very reactive and unable to set the pace for the battle.

 

I've seen a lot of these so called generalized builds get cracked open in seconds during CQ when forced into a damage race with a DPS build or into a pop-shot war with a Sawa Qaud or 3BR build. Can you tell me what makes your build different? If I practiced would I get results with it?

 

Disclaimer: Keep in mind that I'm one of those meta scrubs who spends more time fiddling with UNACs than they do playing the game at this point. However, I have hit the point where I can use any of the meta builds and be effective in a team setting. (as the game is designed to be played)


Anything can be solved with the proper application of explosives

#18 Sash

Sash

    Fucking Tryhard BR Meta-whore.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,498 posts
  • AC Type:
    Based 003 3BR God
  • PSNID:
    @JP SashPerennial
  • LIVE Tag:
    Sash X64

Posted 25 September 2015 - 04:43 PM

Well, much of what I would have said has been said by now. I do not mean to attack anyone here, I just have a couple of things to clarify since I seem to have been referenced a bit.

 

 

@SASH Don't get me wrong, you're absolutely right. There is no kill all AC.

 

Well I mean, one certainly can have a weapon combo that kills basically everything. The AC is the issue. It is not the case that an AC exists which bounces every common weapon.

 

The problems start to arise when players have no concept of what is actually good and therefore bring over-all bad ACs which then counter you.

 

I feel like this is the number one worry. I believe we all call this something like "getting scrubbed out" wherein someone brings something which is, in every other situation, a horrible build, but just so happens to have exactly the right spread of defenses to buff out all our weapons and just the right weapons to blow our AC into dust. This is what effectively eliminates skill from the equation. The disadvantaged player is going to lose the fight unless by some stroke of luck the player with the complete advantage just so happens to throw the game hard enough - which rarely happens because it is so difficult to be completely incompetent in such a situation.

 

Hence, counter-building is not appreciated because it is not really a display of one's mechanical skill, since defeating a countered AC relies upon one's ability to understand only the rudimentary mechanics of the game and execute inputs like lazily floating backwards, lazily floating forwards, mashing the boost button, and holding down triggers. Woo, let's all cry bloody murder at that conclusion~!

 

 

I agree with SASH's statement and it actually reaffirms what I said. "truer test of skill comes in a player who can modify their playstyle to deal with different threats" PLAYSTYLE is the key word, not the design of the AC. So in your reasoning, this would be the physical side of gameplay, which I agree. I only disagree with you in that I value the Intellectual side more, which I do not. If I stay with my one build facing different types of opponents, I would have to adjust my PLAYSTYLE to overcome. My AC and Weapons loadout remained constant. 

 

My apologies, I was unclear there. I did mean playstyle, but I also meant it in the sense that, if one's primary build does not suit the current match-up, that they would then be able to transition into another (perhaps radically different) build and continue to play at a competitive level. This is in a sense both the player's understanding of game mechanics and competency in their inputs. It is probably necessary to also say that the player would have acquired an understanding of how to reliably execute whichever strategies were most effective when used by the variety of builds they may need to pilot to retain a competitive edge with regards to their opponent. So, I mean change of playstyle as in; play a different build and know what you have to do when you play that different build and have knowledge of how to make that builds advantages work alongside your strategies.

 

 

There are two ways to play this game. On an intellectual level and on a physical level. Playing the game by building the right AC to compete and beat your opponent in the arena of choice and then changing so you can't be countered next game or sticking the same once you expect them to counter you is on the intellectual side. Often favouring tactical awareness and positioning so you don't have to make fancy moves in order to win. Playing the game by trying to outplay your opponent through movement, reactions or precision is the physical side. From what I've seen of you you seem to value the intellectual side more.

 

 

Bruh Sun Tzu says it's more important to out think your enemy than to out fight him...

 

We've had this conversation before, and I recall it being quite exhilarating and revealing. You are correct in saying that I favor the intellectual battlefield more so than the physical one. Hard work and practice on the physical side of ACVD should reward the player more than intellectual talent nine times out of ten, and I think that's an acceptable outcome. I cannot expect myself to win every fight simply because my AC is objectively stronger, mechanical skill is important. I mean, I might have the advantage, but if I can't exert that advantage then I am at the mercy of my opponent.

 

While I believe you are correct in that statement is the one that leads to the most success. I would not say it's a truer test of skill. In fact I think many of the less successful players are arguably more skilled in their own ways in almost every game I play. The successful players are often lazy due to using the dominant strategies and therefore their mechanical skill either doesn't improve or even weakens. The innovative players keep their skills honed because they have to in order to compete or just because they relish a challenge. In V, I spent a lot of my time trying to push my mechanical skill but once I wanted to be competitive, I had to play things that were objectively strong to compete. Since then and particularly in VD, I didn't have much motivation to do so and my ability to play stagnated. 

 

I think that's a cool argument you make. I always enjoy following players who use strategies that aren't the most widely used. Nonetheless they're still good players and their strategies are made viable by their dedication to executing them well. That isn't to say that they'll defeat an equally dedicated player who is using a more viable method of playing the game, but it's gonna be a good fight to watch.

 

I think that in my case I wanted to be as successful as possible, not necessarily as good as I could be. I stopped practicing my V playstyle entirely and tried to go right to playing the meltiest shit possible. It hasn't made me any better as a player, my mechanics have definitely slipped, but have I melted more people? Of course. Most people have told me they remember me as a dangerous Quad pilot, but I don't consider myself a player who even uses Quads anymore. I definitely feel like I've become pretty overconfident in my abilities. I have my moments, but not nearly as frequently as in V. It's a pity.

 

 I don't trust nor use any Meta builds. Good luck to those who do, you will not win...

 

I dunno where this anti-meta lash came from. I used to really despise players that played exclusively meta shit. Now I understand why they chose to play meta shit. I don't hold it against them anymore, so long as it has been stressed that they're going hard - I don't always like going hard, it is fun to mess around in ACVD, it just isn't fun to be messing around and then run into someone who's going hard...

 

The part of this discussion which does interest me is this "generalized build". Which you appear to claim gets good performance across the board, even when fighting counter builds. Additionally that this build caters very specifically to your playstyle. I haven't played in a while, (Blame bloodborne and scholar of the 1st sin) so many this is more recent, but these generalization builds tend to be very reactive and unable to set the pace for the battle.

 

I have more general build that I'm comfortable with. I prefer it in duels because it is simple to pilot and lets me fight regularly against the widest range of enemies possible. In a team setting it feels much more like a source of supplemental damage, though. The only real strength is poking power and token anti-LW interception capabilities. The problem is, of course, what you've said about generalized ACs being reactive. If I am unable to dictate the flow of battle, then my opponent can force me to maneuver and respond to him, which in turn lets him understand where my strengths and weaknesses lie. It should be evident why this is a problem. In certain match-ups all my opponent has to do is trade favorably during my rush and then punish me afterwards - hell, he'd only really need to trade favorably or punish the rush at a minimum. The problem with a reactive build is that the opponent may then chose play to his own strengths or to play around your own. It doesn't take more than a week of experience to recognize that ineffective PMG and HSM is not gonna trade well with a KRSW or 3BR.

 

I've seen a lot of these so called generalized builds get cracked open in seconds during CQ when forced into a damage race with a DPS build or into a pop-shot war with a Sawa Qaud or 3BR build. Can you tell me what makes your build different? If I practiced would I get results with it?

 

I may have touched on this earlier, but where a reactive build plays into a team setting is by being a supplement to another AC's firepower. A generalized AC can buddy up with a specialized AC to take on a certain target far better than two specialized ACs would be able to do, given that one is not specialized for the task and one is. I can provide an example if this premise interests anyone.

 

Anyhow, yeah, generalized builds eat shit and choke on dicks if they aren't played well. If they just rush in they won't get anything done, they have to react to what the opponent does and coordinate with their teammates. They are kinda useless on their own, and can be seen as dead weight if they aren't played well. However, they normally fill the role of an intermediary AC. They don't do anything particularly well (the better generalized builds are oftentimes specialized as much as is convenient to do), but they really shine in covering their teammates bases.

 

Of course, a proper team composition often makes it unnecessary to have generalized ACs on a team. Likewise, a team of generalized ACs lacks any real strengths other than mere focused fire. As such, it is pretty hard for a team of generalized ACs to achieve victory without a lot of coordination. You might say that the same can be said for overspecialized ACs, though.

 

It may prove entertaining to revisit the topic. I'll hold off for now, however, unless it turns out to be the case that the topic is stimulating. Oh, and my apologies if I missed any glaring grammatical errors - I do not have any strong anchor in this topic and as one might expect I do not sufficiently care enough about my position to proofread extensively.


you fucking tryhard

 Rix-Today at 9:17 PM

I banned someone because they posted porn in a porn topic

 

AvalonFive-Today at 9:25 PM
I like being both top and bottom so the middle sounds nice
 
Kappa

 


#19 RomannamoR11

RomannamoR11

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts
  • AC Type:
    Bipeds, all pant sizes
  • PSNID:
    RomannamoR11

Posted 25 September 2015 - 06:59 PM

Well put @SASH.
@ROGAN,
Let it be noted, I don't usually CQ. Takes too long to get battles, and it turns into a jump one guy the fastest to get 4v3 first. Can be fun from time to time with great team play tho; with much nicer maps. I play mostly 1v1, but I LOVE 2v2. That should be the way this game is played. More skill than picking someone off.

@the meta game, I just tire of facing the same builds over again. No creativity. Haven't really played against a good meta yet so maybe someone out there can stomp me and put me in my place. Meta rant done ;)

Derailment of thread over. I favor locked builds, since it suits me. At most, two ACs tho. Gives you guys a choice to make two ACs that can work on each others strengths and weaknesses.
I like the other Arena that is floating around here where you can only challenge the rank above you and be challenged by the one below you. Reminds me of Afro Samurai. I think Dominant made that one yes?

#20 DominantLegend

DominantLegend

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • AC Type:
    AC Red Sun
  • PSNID:
    DominantLegend

Posted 25 September 2015 - 11:36 PM

I made the one that uses rank swapping to sort everyone out faster, with a two consecutive win (and loser picks map, so you have to win against map odds). It's on hiatus/hold since I don't have the time it takes to manage all the logistics on my own.

 

Floyd made one that is best two out of three and you can only challenge directly above your rank. It's still running, albeit smaller and slower.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq