Metagame Analysis

Find all your ARC RPGs and fantasy leagues discussed here. We're good at this stuff.

Moderator: Tournament Hosts

User avatar
NFX
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland somewhere

Metagame Analysis

Post by NFX » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:52 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Badnik96</dt><dd>Jun 10 2013&#44; 07:59 PM</dd></dl><div> Of course there's also the new speed bots like Angered Mystery and Haphazard that are using a less wedgy design in order to get more speed, and AM3 was one win away from making the playoffs.

IMO wedges will always come down to writer's discretion. There's no real way to decide it otherwise.

I do think we should bring back the bonus points thing from Robot Attack though. [/quote]
Jesus Built My Hotrod is going down that road, with no wedge at all. It'll be interesting to see how that does, with all this brew ha ha about 7 Wedge just cropping up.

And the bonus points could work well, but the problem that we found last time was that there was the cutoff points, e.g. 5 and 6, 8 and 9, and so on, where you would essentially get a free weapon point for no cost, thus making certain Weapon stats redundant.
Team Mongoose (358-215)
"The Colour of Awesome"

Braveheart / Crash Blossom / Depth Charge / Broken Ghost / Murder Death Unit / Agent X

RoBattle
Override - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 3 pts
MiDAS - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 0 pts

it was a gigantic masturbation of polygons :v - That Kode Guy

User avatar
NWOWWE
Posts: 6855
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: E-Town, PA
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by NWOWWE » Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:03 am

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>NFX</dt><dd>Jun 10 2013&#44; 04:52 PM</dd></dl><div> And the bonus points could work well, but the problem that we found last time was that there was the cutoff points, e.g. 5 and 6, 8 and 9, and so on, where you would essentially get a free weapon point for no cost, thus making certain Weapon stats redundant. [/quote]
I suppose you could do worse than to have (relatively) minor redundancy issues like that.
Area51Escapee,Jan 30 2011 wrote:
Spatula,Jan 29 2011 wrote: I should go 3-1 this week but it'll probably be something like 0-4 or 0-5.
It sucks going 0-5. You lose all 4 of your bot fights for the week and you also lose at life.

Siphai
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Metagame Analysis

Post by Siphai » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:09 am

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>NFX</dt><dd>Jun 10 2013&#44; 03:52 PM</dd></dl><div> And the bonus points could work well, but the problem that we found last time was that there was the cutoff points, e.g. 5 and 6, 8 and 9, and so on, where you would essentially get a free weapon point for no cost, thus making certain Weapon stats redundant. [/quote]
Yeah 5, 8, and 12 I think are redundant points. I don't think that's too bad, and even is its own kind of buff to weapon'd robots anyway. I dunno. My own design philosophy is that you usually shouldn't nerf certain designs to make others more viable, but to buff the less viable designs so that they can be competitive. One of the main problems that I have when allocating points for weapons is that I just don't have enough points to play around with what I want. For some designs, like spinners, this can turn into a situation where you get maybe 1 or 2 different point allocations and it makes fights between them boring.

User avatar
NWOWWE
Posts: 6855
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: E-Town, PA
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by NWOWWE » Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:12 am

Like the season when Dark Side of Cupid, Revolver Ocelot, and Pinpoint all had the exact same stats. :lol:
Area51Escapee,Jan 30 2011 wrote:
Spatula,Jan 29 2011 wrote: I should go 3-1 this week but it'll probably be something like 0-4 or 0-5.
It sucks going 0-5. You lose all 4 of your bot fights for the week and you also lose at life.

User avatar
NFX
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland somewhere

Metagame Analysis

Post by NFX » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:07 pm

RPM seems to have broadly the same stats as Rooster Teeth, apart from one point, I think. And then Kraze and Camo Alert were the same in the season they both lost in the playoffs. There does seem to be only a few stat base allocations that work, give or take a few. Good job to Kody for finding a different one, though, more or less, and making it work. And I've still got no idea how to make Scatterbrain a viable competitor. =P
Team Mongoose (358-215)
"The Colour of Awesome"

Braveheart / Crash Blossom / Depth Charge / Broken Ghost / Murder Death Unit / Agent X

RoBattle
Override - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 3 pts
MiDAS - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 0 pts

it was a gigantic masturbation of polygons :v - That Kode Guy

playzooki
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: kidnapped in the illuminati hq
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by playzooki » Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:29 pm

If you do, tell me because i have mr not very nice

User avatar
That Kode Guy
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Etobicoke, Canada
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by That Kode Guy » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:45 am

Well, we're almost mid-way through FRR: No Mercy. How are people finding the new system?
Image
ARC ShitShow
Team Covenant

Cherry Bomb Classic 3:
Eudial = 3-0 (overall = 17-2)


ARC CAREER = 523-238

User avatar
NFX
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland somewhere

Metagame Analysis

Post by NFX » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:05 pm

Jesus Built My Hotrod is fucked. =D
Team Mongoose (358-215)
"The Colour of Awesome"

Braveheart / Crash Blossom / Depth Charge / Broken Ghost / Murder Death Unit / Agent X

RoBattle
Override - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 3 pts
MiDAS - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 0 pts

it was a gigantic masturbation of polygons :v - That Kode Guy

playzooki
Posts: 2832
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: kidnapped in the illuminati hq
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by playzooki » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:23 pm

good when i win, bad when i lose :v:

in all fairness it looks ok to me

User avatar
BEES
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Metagame Analysis

Post by BEES » Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:35 pm

What I like so far:
-The new damage scale is fine, I think.
-Lack of wedge stat does seem better.
-Torque does seem to be mattering more, but maybe I'm hallucinating.

Tweaks that I'd like to see:
-We need to get rid of the weapon armor bonus for lifters completely.
-The weapon self-destruct ratio probably will have to be lowered a bit. Maybe to 16 or something.
-I think clusterbots might be a bit overpowered but there's no evidence of that yet.

-The walker rules need some work. The 9 point cap on torque and traction is very irritating, because people keep interpreting 6 speed with a walker as less than 6, for instance. I'd rather just have a hard limit on speed. Just say that walkers can't go faster than 5 or something, but have 5 be 5 actual speed points.

User avatar
That Kode Guy
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Etobicoke, Canada
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by That Kode Guy » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:11 pm

So what makes a good design a good design? Other people calling it good? Winning matches? Placing 1st in CAD contests? lol. Personally I think it's a mixture of the first two. If people think it has potential and then it goes out and proves itself in the arena, then yes it's a good design. People might not like it, as in the case of rammers, but it's had the christening stages of high opinion and success.

What else makes a good design, just that? Generally rammers do well. Why do rammers do well? Well let's take a look at one of the most obvious examples: Tank. He makes use of two amazing things, and one of them is the wedge.

The wedge, man... Siphai went into this himself in the first post, but I gotta re-iterate it all. It is boring, that is a true fact. They're not flashy at all. However, they're not supposed to be. It's just that useful and a staple of robot combat ever since bots like Biohazard and Voltarc entered the arena, hell possibly even La Machine. The wedge gets under another robot and most of the time removes their ability to drive. Man, removing your opponent's mobility by suspending their wheels in the air&#33; It's dead useful. We all know this. And this is why so many competitors, IRL or fanfic, have put wedges on their robots, because people see the fucking need for them, they recognize the usefulness of the wedge, and its ability to turn a battle around.

Now there are wedges everywhere you look, and many, many different variations on them. You have flat ones like Original Sin, scoops like Shunt of Robot Wars, forks like Complete Control, or Sewer Snake, and so on and forth. And even those categories have variants. People just find them important. So what happens when a wedge meets a wedge? Do they cancel out? Does one get under the other? Why does one wedge get under the other? Why is it better? I'm sure a lot of participants here have probably asked themselves that. :v: But it's true.

Going back a bit, Tank made use of wedges. Now we know by now that the wedge is a scary thing, right? It's not flashy by any means, but it can get under you, and it can at least halt your movement somewhat. Well, as a lot of rammers before and after did, Tank made use of another amazing thing: the infamous duo of drive and armour.

A wedge is a scary thing, but something heavily armoured and coming at you like light speed is also scary. Combining those things all adds up to one freakishly demonic bot, doesn't it? It can get to you instantly, it can shrug off any weapon you might have, and it'll get under you and slam you everywhere, and you know you were fucked the moment you decided to challenge this robot, as you lie there after three minutes in, a barely moving lump, a shadow of your former self, broken from all the slamming and crashing this motherfucker granted you.

However, there is also another very successful design as well, and it could be considered the arch-enemy of the rammer. That design makes use of a horizontal spinning weapon. Yep, the horizontal spinner. Granted, there are crazier variants of horizontals spinners than there are wedges, but that's obvious. :v:

Consider the real robot, Last Rites. He has a huge spinning bar of death in front of him, ready to paste the unlucky son of a bitch that entered the arena with him, across that very arena and put them crying in a corner, mangled beyond repair. It's so devious it's beautiful. And it's also a good defense as well, because it prevents an opposing robot from simply barging in and taking control. And to cap it off even further, some of those hellish spinners add - you guessed it - wedges&#33; To the sides, to the rear... even they see the usefulness of the wedge. Granted, most spinners don't quite benefit from having a wedge at all, as it seems they don't have the force to get under other wedges. But could they?

And consider this, a highly successful design, Hazard, and his probable HW clone, Brutality. Both of them have great weapons, but they both also had good wedges. If their weapon ran out, they could simply fall back on the wedge. And in Hazard's case he had more than enough power to push other robots around.

Let's go into more designs.

Lifters, ah... these guys showcase a quicker way to strand your opponents, or better get under them. A lifter can do just that: lift. Or it can push itself into the ground to get the entire robot more leverage and better get under other robots. And they only need to spare a token of their weight (or in ARC's case, stats) just to get that damn lifter in there, so they could still be a beastly rammer if they wanted to. But all lifters, every single one, uses a wedge AS a lifter. What is a lifter without a wedge? A nobody, that's who, because it won't get under anything and that totally defeats the purpose of a lifter.

Flippers&#33; You have three variants: rear-hinged, front-hinged, and from-the-side, like Mouser Mecha Catbot, or Lightning from RW7. But again, these guys are required to get under a robot to use their weaponry. How do they do it? WEDGE.

What about other spinners? Vertical spinners? There are some variants here as well. Personally I have always considered drums, beaters, etc. to be in this category. They virtually are vertical spinners, because... uhhh they spin vertically? Thin discs like Nightmare and 259 possess a lot of bite on their side, but have a lot of surface area for more practical spinners, such as horizontal spinners, to hit. This is a key reason why people bring up the horizontal vs. vertical argument, because it is true. A horizontal spinner is pretty much always going to devastate a vertical spinner of equal strength. Drums are a bit better off, because they have a very long attack width. Unfortunately they don't get the same bite that the discs do and thus they don't exactly do as much damage... though I think Touro Maximus could convince me otherwise after demolishing Tanto like that. :v:

Oh hey, axes&#33; Axes are great, they are overhead weapons that take advantage of a robot's top armour and simply beat into it. Vertical crushers are in the same mold, though they are slower. Both of them, however, require a lot of power to do much damage nowadays and are fairly inaccurate anyway. Combined with the remaining weight (or stats) needed for the robot, there's a reason why you don't see as many of them.

Thwacks, horizontal crushers, I-beams, pneumatic spikes... seriously, I could go on. There are so many designs out there and pretty much every single one of them has been copied. I think the only weapon that only exists in fic is the puncher, and Probot and Force Feedback were the pioneers of that, with bots like F-Dynasty and Teresa following suit. Let's face it. Every bot is in some way going to be a clone of another. Personally, I don't care if Teresa is like a clone of Force Feedback or Stingray, or if Lethal Injection is a clone of Annoying Box Rush or if AMP is kind of a clone of IceWave or GreenWave or whatever that spinner was called. Thing is, we recognize those designs and respect them, so we kinda honour them in the silly ways that we do. Originality is a rare thing, and once something new comes, everyone is going to want to clone it.

Martijn, I think, made an excellent post regarding originality years back, as well.

And really, another thing I wanted to discuss is that, because we have so many different writers now, nobody and I mean NOBODY should ever have to bitch about a match they lose or whatever, unless there's a huge lack of common sense that's not missed by a large chunk of the community. We have different writers because we don't want the same opinion all the time. We want to see how others feel about things. If Siphai is writing a match and thinks "Oh, Lethal Injection's lifter is better than Peppernut's, he should take better control of the fight", and has LI win, but then Badnik comes along next week, gets LI's next match and thinks "Huh, Parabolic Trajectory can outwedge this guy, Peppernut should have been able to last week", and then has LI lose, well that's all right. A lot of result writing is writer's discretion. A lot of us agree and disagree on a lot of matters, and sometimes we try and convince each other of our own opinions. Thing is, there are some things we will never agree on, and that's fine, nobody's going to agree 100% with you. And that's why bitching about it is never going to work, because you're always going to make enemies that way. So what if Teresa loses to Stabstract? Personally I think he's got me countered completely; the writer might think otherwise, or he might agree with me. And oh well, if I lose, I lose, suck it up, move on to next week. And IRL can make us a little crabby at times, or whatever's happened. I know I've been a great dirty hypocrite and done this myself even recently, lol. I bitched at Siphai for Mass Hypnosis vs. Dreadnought back in FRR6. We got into a discussion, and things stayed the same. Didn't get me anywhere. Why should it, Kody? It's a perfectly viable loss you fucking retard, get over it. :v: It's also a kind of mental note for myself, because I'm prone to getting a little frustrated at times, and I realize I need to cool down.

As for stat systems, I'll be fully honest and say I really do like the changes Spatula implemented into RB, and am seriously considering using them for Ruination 3. However, there is one thing I wanted to discuss about that, as well. The multiple weapon rule thing. I actually very much dislike it, as I feel it ruins the chances for multiple-weapon bots to be really viable. I mean, IRL this is kind of understandable as the only multi-weapons bot I remember (off the top of my head) to ever really do well (in Battlebots anyway) was Tazbot, and he didn't even make the finals. Warrior SKF I can't say, because I haven't been able to follow him.

I feel there needs to be an adjustment to this rule. I understand why Spatula implemented it, because shit like Curse of the Deep is fucking overpowered as hell (though as the father of the idea of CotD2, I'll take the blame :P) as well as Airazor (sorry again .__.) and a few others, but it's just not working. Perhaps we should revert to the previous system, but have a weapon point cap for multiple weapons? That would discourage crazy shit.

And at the end of the day, it's just a forum game. Something we waste our lives on for absolutely no fundamental goal in life. So why really argue about it. :v:

Okay I'm done. Hope you enjoyed this waffle.
Image
ARC ShitShow
Team Covenant

Cherry Bomb Classic 3:
Eudial = 3-0 (overall = 17-2)


ARC CAREER = 523-238

User avatar
NFX
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland somewhere

Metagame Analysis

Post by NFX » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:21 pm

"Perhaps we should revert to the previous system, but have a weapon point cap for multiple weapons? That would discourage crazy shit."

I suggest deducting points at a ratio of the points invested. Say, 25% or so, then rounded down. An 8 Weapon bot with two weapons have both of them dropped to 6, but a robot with 14 Weapon points with two weapons would be dropped to 10.5 points each, becoming 10 points.
Team Mongoose (358-215)
"The Colour of Awesome"

Braveheart / Crash Blossom / Depth Charge / Broken Ghost / Murder Death Unit / Agent X

RoBattle
Override - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 3 pts
MiDAS - Heats: 19 pts / Finals: 0 pts

it was a gigantic masturbation of polygons :v - That Kode Guy

Siphai
Posts: 4069
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Metagame Analysis

Post by Siphai » Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:04 pm

I think its pretty clear to see what designs are most successful from a stat standpoint. Spinners, Rammers, and Lifters make it easy to invest points and create a strong, all around design. In fact, it got to the point where Lifters felt inherently superior to rammers in every way, since they got all the benefits of the drive stats that a rammer has, while also gaining a weapon that:

1. Is usually lower than everything.
2. Helps control the opponent.
3. Gets a +2 armor bonus.

Of course, the Robot Bastard changes help with this (torque becoming more necessary, while the armor bonus is unavailable for weapons under 5 power.

I think the more interesting thing is what makes a wedge lower than the opponents. I know there are differing ideas on this, so I'll just list the criteria that I use.

1. The thickness of the wedge.
2. The angle of the wedge.
3. The weight of the wedge (this includes the force of that wedge from a lifter)

And that's it. Piano Teeth wedges help, in that you increase the amount of force by creating a smaller surface area that presses on the floor, but it depends on other factors. There is such a thing as 'too many teeth' given that each additional one increases the surface area - an infinite amount of piano teeth is essentially what a normal wedge with no piano teeth already is (if that makes sense). I think the ideal number is somewhere around 3-5, depending on the size of the teeth/wedge.

One thing I do want to address is that, yes, nobody should ever HAVE to bitch about a match they lose. Ideally each match is perfect and no one has any complaints. But its not a big deal if they DO bitch. This tournament isn't a huge timesink, but its enough of one that people get invested, and that's fine. Its natural to get upset when you lose, and its unfortunate when you think you lost because the writer is a complete moron and thought one of the robots was a multibot. The important thing is that they express these concerns in a healthy way. I know a lot of my results have tried to trend towards the direction of describing Why something gives a robot the upperhand, rather than What happens in the fight itself, but for the most part people don't really get the Why their robot lost described to them in the fight - just how they lost. So if they want to know the Why, they should have every right to be able to contact the writer and ask about it. To be honest, I don't even have a problem with the grievances being addressed in the main thread, or in the main skype chat, as long as its done in a level headed manner.

Really, I've been thinking that the Fixtures (who writes what) should've been posted up in the main forum a long time ago, or that the results themselves should say who wrote them since I know that as of speakign just about everyone can see the staff forum except for maybe 4 people.

As for the fights shifting from week to week, I mostly agree with you. I think there is a level of consistency that still needs to be achieved. Luna beat Toothache by KO this week and should beat Toothache by KO every week. Getting into something like "what wedge is lower" is probably at the other end of the spectrum. But I think everyone would know that in a head to head, Barrier's forks would fit between Marauders teeth and get underneath the plow, and that's an element that would be written consistently. I don't think previous results should be the hard and fast rule for future results, in that, because I wrote Microwave scoring a KO on Le-Mans that Microwave should always score a KO, but I do think people should look at past results as a basis for a future result, where the previous result sets at least some sort of precedent. It should be extremely difficult for Le-Mans to beat Microwave in a future match, when previously Microwave won by KO in 2 minutes.

User avatar
That Kode Guy
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Etobicoke, Canada
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by That Kode Guy » Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:18 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Siphai</dt><dd>Sep 30 2014, 07:04 PM</dd></dl><div>One thing I do want to address is that, yes, nobody should ever HAVE to bitch about a match they lose. Ideally each match is perfect and no one has any complaints. But its not a big deal if they DO bitch. This tournament isn't a huge timesink, but its enough of one that people get invested, and that's fine. Its natural to get upset when you lose, and its unfortunate when you think you lost because the writer is a complete moron and thought one of the robots was a multibot. The important thing is that they express these concerns in a healthy way. I know a lot of my results have tried to trend towards the direction of describing Why something gives a robot the upperhand, rather than What happens in the fight itself, but for the most part people don't really get the Why their robot lost described to them in the fight - just how they lost. So if they want to know the Why, they should have every right to be able to contact the writer and ask about it. To be honest, I don't even have a problem with the grievances being addressed in the main thread, or in the main skype chat, as long as its done in a level headed manner.

Really, I've been thinking that the Fixtures (who writes what) should've been posted up in the main forum a long time ago, or that the results themselves should say who wrote them since I know that as of speakign just about everyone can see the staff forum except for maybe 4 people.

As for the fights shifting from week to week, I mostly agree with you. I think there is a level of consistency that still needs to be achieved. Luna beat Toothache by KO this week and should beat Toothache by KO every week. Getting into something like "what wedge is lower" is probably at the other end of the spectrum. But I think everyone would know that in a head to head, Barrier's forks would fit between Marauders teeth and get underneath the plow, and that's an element that would be written consistently. I don't think previous results should be the hard and fast rule for future results, in that, because I wrote Microwave scoring a KO on Le-Mans that Microwave should always score a KO, but I do think people should look at past results as a basis for a future result, where the previous result sets at least some sort of precedent. It should be extremely difficult for Le-Mans to beat Microwave in a future match, when previously Microwave won by KO in 2 minutes. [/quote]I pretty much agree with all of that. I mean, nobody is a perfect writer and we've all fucked up with results, or at the very least written a match that more than one person has thought questionable. Not to delve into Aftermath again or anything but I think one of the more interesting matches I wrote, and which received quite a bit of negative feedback, was S.W.A.T. vs. Mobile Failure. John stated that he would attack the sides of Tracy, and Tracy stated that she'd back off if he tried to do this, and then attack again. Well sometimes it worked because MF had the better control, and sometimes it didn't because John had better speed. But also I didn't feel S.W.A.T. was quick enough to get to the sides and that also counted against him. That ultimately was what I thought would give Tracy the win; John trying to get around her and failing. I will admit that S.W.A.T. was a better design than Mobile Failure, so that's why I kept it close, because he could still pile on the pressure and control Mobile Failure pretty well when he did get under. The "controversy" was that Tracy's RP was almost entirely pessimistic, which is in fact entirely bullshit. I don't know about you, but I'm here to sit down and write a match, not going to listen to you whine about how the opponent is better than you in possibly every conceivable way and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. So I ignored pretty much everything in her RP that was pessimistic. I don't know how Josh, Chris, or Philip felt about that, but they didn't agree with it. Whatever. We're not going to agree on all things. No one will. But complaining about a match, actually screaming abuse at the writer or tournament director, is not the right way about going things. I have no problem explaining the results I write, yeah as long as you approach me like a decent individual. This should go for any writer; Josh, Lian, Spatula, Badnik, etc, and yeah people should be able to see who writes which fight so the writer(s) can be available for comment. And if so, they can explain any potentially questionable losses.

Consistency is a tough thing to really handle, because although there are certain things that a lot of the writers would agree on, like Dr. Pepperdine being unable to KO Zombie Killer in LoRE, you'll have the other writer or two like Badnik who thought otherwise. Because, again, people aren't going to 100% agree on the same thing. I'll throw you a bone though in that there are some things that should pretty much always be. Like Tellu would realistically never be able to take more than two or three hits from Snijmachine without being KOed because of the sheer weapon to armour disparity, or something like Angered Mystery 3 trying to get to Merry Hampton's sides which would fail miserably. Thing is, when things go down from there it starts to get harder on who will agree on what, and so that's why I feel arguing about results seems kind of pointless unless it's some utterly catastrophic lack of common sense. You won't achieve anything except making the writer angry if you just go on and on about it, so if you're going to question a result, just keep it short and civil, and maybe the writer will apologize for a slight he made and promise to do better next time, or you'll better understand why he had the other robot win.
Image
ARC ShitShow
Team Covenant

Cherry Bomb Classic 3:
Eudial = 3-0 (overall = 17-2)


ARC CAREER = 523-238

User avatar
That Kode Guy
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Etobicoke, Canada
Contact:

Metagame Analysis

Post by That Kode Guy » Sat Jul 11, 2015 10:50 pm

Almost through LoRE2. Ruination 3 is just a month away, p/ much. Thoughts?

How are people liking the current system? What do they think of the upcoming changes (multiple weapon rule, writer cycle)? Etc?
Image
ARC ShitShow
Team Covenant

Cherry Bomb Classic 3:
Eudial = 3-0 (overall = 17-2)


ARC CAREER = 523-238

Post Reply