A note on competitive designs.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

If your designing an AC in SL-LR games, there's something you have to realize.

 

There is infact a metagame, an abstract base of design types and part tiers.

 

Now, my competition designs seem alittle super-specialized; and that's because most tournaments I went to allowed multiple (usually 3) designs.

 

Now, I've won a couple that allow only one design.

 

This changes the game immensely.

 

With 3, you end up with your rock/paper/scissors vs. your opponents rock/paper/scissors.

 

With 1, it's pick one vs. his pick.

 

So in a tournament setting where more than one AC is viable, the metagame tends to be alittle more open; and to be honest it has both it's pros and cons.

 

Pro: You can have alittle more varity and fun with things.

Cons: You can run 3 broke bots.

 

Same goes for 1 AC play, you can only have 1 broke bot, but you can only have 1 bot. The other thing to consider is you need a bot that's a viable option against all (or as best as possible) to all the others.

 

I'm for allowing 3 AC's in play, I'm not to big of 5 (as LR gives you 5 per file, that's alittle too much coverage, IMO).

 

Not saying it doesn't have problems, but if you have a good comprehensive ban list, then there's very little to worry about.

 

It spices things up too, when you don't know what AC your opponent is going with, what they might bring to the table; atleast for the first round of matches, the excitement is very enjoyable.

Edited October 22, 2010 by DangerWorldWide

[Mom]

I have mixed feelings about it. Granted you can get hardcountered in a competitive tournament if you only have one ac, but usually all the best designed competitive bots have clever ways around of being too centered on one strat or playstyle, and can ward off a lot of different things that they come against. Having one AC that has to workaround multiple instances possibly brings the best out of the pilot as well, as they don't dwell on the counter-game.

 

With multiple ACs, you can very well get more variety in your gameplay, and there's always the notion of building a team that's cleverly designed to work around and progress the current metagame. The problem is that AC was never that balanced enough to allow for a great metagame that constantly altered, and things seemed to eventually stagnate. With the rock/paper/scissors like element of multiple ACs, you also get ACs that can possibly be single-minded in design, and were really only designed to work around a metagame as thought, rather than being designed as one solid bot. Also on the point of a stagnant metagame, you should very well see those teams of ACs being no more diverse than the single AC tournies-- because without a fluid metagame, there's little reason to find much niches that can otherwise forward the metagame.

 

 

So in short, I feel the one AC design tends to bring the best out of designing towards a solid AC, while a team brings out best designing towards working around a metagame. If From Software balanced the older ACs better, I think AC groupings for a tournament could be something very fun.

 

 

I personally prefer 1 ac vs a team of 3. IF I had to run a tournament with teams of ACs per player, I think I'd only allow two at most.

Edited December 14, 2010 by TMRaven

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I like the idea. I think holding different styles of tournaments is great, in general. For example, originally the MOC format here was 1v1 with rules (MOC tournament, proper), and then a 1v1 no-rules tournament. For obvious reasons, the tournament with rules always held the much higher value. Now, as we went along, the no-rules tournament disappeared, and we tried to introduce a 2v2 one, but it never panned out...it was too hard for us to get any more than one tourney in a day because it was just too big. Usually, we'd just have to ride around to more local tournaments to play in different rules and the like. In casual play, we did 2v2 all the time and I loved it.

 

For AC2-NX era, anyhow, I do feel the MOC format was the ideal way to determine who was the best player in California. 1v1, yearly, single bot, MOC rules. I felt it was the most accurate indicator. My biggest regret, however, was not organizing my own tournament(s) for 2v2 play. I feel like there was an entire avenue of AC we didn't get to explore because of that. We could theorize all day about how 2v2 would work but it'd all be meaningless bullshit until we got out onto the field and tested it out ourselves (like always).

 

I'm all for various styles of tournaments; I dig the MM and RR setups. Anything to get people interested and engaged in the scene. I am generally against novelty tournaments, however. I mean, I wouldn't stop anyone from having them or anything but the idea doesn't sit too well with me.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Yah, my NT tourney for ACfA (and future ones when I get around to them) allowed the use of multiple bots along with a map pool that also granted the players the ability to thumbs down maps. I highly enjoy players making an active effort to vary their play and really think about their opponents. It's much more entertaining, I feel.

 

I believe I allowed for you to switch bots 2x over the course of the entire tournament. I don't run my tourneys all in one day, either. Each round of matches is run on a different week allowing for easy control of matches for me and preset match times for the players. Much easier to do it that way online. More importantly, it allowed the players to plan ahead and practice in-between matches as well as build hype. But yah, 3 bots total. Starting bot plus two switches. You could only switch bots between opponent players, not between individual fights with an opponent's bot. So you could use 1 bot today, and then a diff or upgraded/changed bot tomorrow. If you used up all your switches before the finals you'd be predictable going into the finals since you wouldn't have a switch left over.

 

Ro16 -> Ro8 -> Ro4 (SemiFinals)-> Ro2 (Finals)

 

The other thing was my map pool. I tried to make sure there were some very different maps in the pool. 7 total and each match was a Best of 3. The players were each allowed to thumbs down two maps from the pool (effectively skipping them). That would leave us with 3 maps, of which the players could remove maps they absolutely knew they'd get fucked up on. If they both picked the same map I would flip a coin to pick a player and tell that player to pick another map since it was already thumbed down.

 

It led to some exciting matches. Especially considering that it was ACfA, which is fucked to death by lag. I wish my old capture card hadn't died out recording in the middle of it. There was even real prize money for that tourney. $100 in prize material. Next time I think I'm just gonna run a cash prize pool, though.

 

I definitely prefered the format I used over more traditional formats. Just felt much more fun and creative.

 

I also have a neat idea for a team tourney, but I'll save that for when I actually run a team tourney. By team I don't mean 2v2, tho. I mean a team of players rep their team in 1v1's. A team 2v2 or 3v3 would be great, too. I just feel that AC is far less balanced on a 2v2 scale, no matter the game. I also think matches would take at least 2-3x as long, so YouTube would not be happy with me. Now that I think of it, I have a new idea for a twist on a 1v1 tourney, too. Great stuff. I just gotta have the time to actually run these things.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

What's the "traditional" format?

 

MOC rules for map selection were:

 

1) first round coin toss, winner decides to pick or pass, person picking picks from a group of maps, other guy vetoes maps

2) second and third round selection go to whoever lost previous round, from a different (larger) group of maps, veto works same as first round

[Pendragon]

Well, even if I'm allowed to make more than 3 designs, usually I make them all in the same strain. AKA I try to make each one a versatile mech that can handle a variety of situations.

 

I really don't feel comfortable with ACs that are only designed for one purpose. So I try to give them each a set amount of weapons so they can handle different problems.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Traditional format is 1v1 with 1 bot on the 3 (assuming Bo3) most popular and "balanced" maps in game. Maps are generally set without loser choose options. At the very least they're always narrowed down to a very select few if they do allow loser choose options. MOC doesn't define traditional, though. It's just one tourney. 1v1 with 1 setup on 3 diff maps when maps are available is a pretty common tournament setting for just about any game. Be it a team game or solo game. I can't think of many games that don't follow that setup as the basic style of tournament. It's probably the most recurring theme in tournaments there is. Offline or online. Other stuff is generally just individual twists or quirks added to the base, or what I call traditional, format.

 

Btw Pen, one of our competitors had the same bot for all three of his bots. They all had slight variations, though. One version replaced Kamal (Slug Cannon) with a ANSC (Sniper Cannon) and another changed the hand weapons to mix energy + shell instead of being pure shell. People mostly just made minor variations and not large ones. Typically you can design one bot you're very comfortable with and just change a part or two out to cope with different playstyles and that's all you need. Typically it's what you're better off with, too. Comfortability and all.

[Mom]

I dunno about the whole 3 map thing being the norm. I actually can't really think of a game that only allowed 3 maps in a tourny besides some of the ACO AC4 tournies.

[Harakiri Tiger]

Yah, most games run 3 preset or pick from 5/7 if map options are allowed. TF2/CS1.6/QL/SC/DotA come to mind for me right off the bat. All major competitive scenes full of tons of minor tournies. I don't know too much about new game tournies, though. Like MW2/Halo or whatever. Whenever a specific pregame setup is allowed it tends to be constricted pretty tightly too. Japanese SF is a good example. I prefer the American system, myself. I like a little more uncertainty.

[Mom]

Most of what I can think of is around 5-7 maps. That includes starcraft1, starcraft2, smash brothers, almost all ac tournies pre ac4, acfa and shooters like cod and halo having no real map selection limits.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I didn't like having most of the maps open for matches in SL, but I like the variety.

 

I think a case-by-case analysis has to be done, certain games are more or less map effected.

 

SSBM everyone played Hyrule Castle, then they'd bitch about people camping on the lower level when they had high damage.

 

CoD4 was very map specific, in terms of how the match was going to be played, but it still had good balance.

 

Just some examples.

Edited December 15, 2010 by DangerWorldWide

[Mom]

Waw maps are garbage-- that is all.

 

There were only a few good waw maps that I really enjoyed as a shooter, but they were shitted on by tanks. I really liked the downfall map and the feel of its environment, but man the tanks did it in so bad.

[Harakiri Tiger]

I happily never played W@W. I am happy because of that. I got to watch my bro play, tho. Poor kid.

[Mom]

I was really liking it. I was doing dope with my gewehr, picking those mp40 jug faggots off from range with my supposedly underpowered semi-auto that was 2 shot kill and no recoil at all, but the tanks and maps just ruined it.

 

 

I'm trying to do same with m14 and fal on black ops but not liking it so far.

 

 

Oh wait this is ac topic.

[Geist X]

I didn't start playing high level competition until I played Project Phantasma on my friend's Japanese PS. The rules he went by weren't all that different from the ones my friends and I played with; you only had 1 AC to choose from, and you couldn't use overweight/humanoid plus. Maps were random, which never seemed all that random. The only thing we changed was that we had double elimination tournaments instead of single elimination tournaments. Sticking with one AC design made the matches a lot more interesting and really forced you to up your game.

 

As for what was a competitive design, it really varied on the game, and the (link) stages within that game. Some players seemed top notch until they got to the satellite stage and fell off the board, lol. Even though this is more of a player issue than a design issue, I think it's ideal to have an AC that can fight in different environments well...unless you're very comfortable with your AC. Personally I think that RJs are the most effective all terrain type, but even they have bad stages.

 

In AC1 the missile lock on trick dominated tournament play. Virtually all competitive ACs were equipped with missiles. You could get away with using a caterpillar because the high shell defense was a big benefit. However, as soon as overweight and plus came into the picture, all tanks except LC-HTP-AAA weren't viable. It was all about the speedy humanoid legs with the bulky core and arms. This was pretty much the formula for all three games, although it was very exploitable, due to the poor stability.

 

In ACPP the missile lock on trick was removed, which was bad for tanks, but luckily they got the GB-XTL so they didn't have to rely on sniping as much. The weapons I saw used most often by good players were the Magazine, Finger, The Green Rifle, The PPk Laser Rifle, and the Laser Cannon(WC-IR24). The most popular tournament design I saw was the Laser Cannon on Quads, but I don't think it was the most effective. Again when Overweight and plus are introduced, players were almost always using humanoid with Dual Laser Cannons. It was the cheapest build by far, and unlike Double Grenade Launchers there was more ammo, less weight, and faster reload.

 

In ACMOA the PP weapons were nerfed, and a few AC1 parts were buffed. With the added weight on the PP parts, a lot of players switched from the Quad w/Laser Cannons, to Humanoid and RJ w/Missiles, but some just stuck with Quads. The new parts weren't as broken. Overall there was more variety in design in MOA than the other games. This also held true for the Plus and Overweight designs. I do remember lots of people were using the Heavy RJ legs.

 

 

I'm not really a fan of the new games, because they're slower than the older games, and I don't feel like I can move with the same precision. Despite that, players still seem to have the same shortcomings; Some players appear to be really, good, until they play on a map their not used to. Then they become really bad. That happens a lot in Smash and in AC games, but not so much in VO games.

[LCC]

I honestly haven't encountered people who seem good until they play on certain maps. The fact of the matter is that some maps are simply garbage and/or only cater to one style of play, mainly small empty maps. Some maps are just not very good at warning you you're going oob to the point where you feel like you're in a sumo ring (malea base, abandoned highway, sluice gate, sunset floating island SL map, advance base). Good players will be able to stay within the bounds most of the time but it's extremely easy to make a mistake with a forced movement or misjudge an ob glide/slide to put you down a game.

 

My experience with MoA is limited but it seemed like twig legs, green rifle, multis, large missiles, starter missiles, ppk were the bees knees. Canons didn't seem too hot.

 

 

EDIT: forgot to mention how manly the V of Death is!

Edited December 15, 2010 by LCC

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I'm with LCC. From my experience, a legit player tends to be dangerous on any field. I mean, yeah, people do have tendencies and preferences, but if you're trying to win a tournament, you've gotta be ready to fight under less than favorable conditions. It can, and probably will, happen.

 

Raor, I imagine you've seen the same thing be the case?

[Harakiri Tiger]

From my experience, a legit player tends to be dangerous on any field. I mean, yeah, people do have tendencies and preferences, but if you're trying to win a tournament, you've gotta be ready to fight under less than favorable conditions. It can, and probably will, happen.

 

I agree with this wholeheartidly.

[Exile]

SL-LR tournaments still exist?

[Harakiri Tiger]

Yup. RR runs them every now and then. In-person, even.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Yeah, I was pretty good on all the maps in SL and stuff.

 

I mean, some maps lean more to some designs, usually if you got jammed into the Garage map, damage racers would chump you.

 

I ran Wufei out of Karasawa ammo and missiles in the Garage without getting hit (some AC tournament in Lansing, used to be in Tips'n'Tricks back in the MoA days), it was a bitch; but the rape win was worth the trouble.

 

But by and large, Player Skill > Map Selection.

 

Because good players learn the maps.

Edited January 6, 2011 by DangerWorldWide

[Mom]

I'll take a shit on you if you choose lava map for last raven.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I love the one that's out in the open with floating stone platforms, I rule that map.