Metagame Analysis

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

Moderator: Tournament Hosts

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

Metagame Analysis

Post by BEES » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:26 pm

I don't like the sound of this 'fuzzy rule' thing... and this is the first I've heard about it. Just seems to be asking for tons of bias.

I'm up for simplifying the rules to an extent though. There's a tug-of-war on ARC between making fights fair as possible, and making the rules accessible as possible. Those two things are at odds with each other and we've tried to find a compromise that everyone can live with over time.

If you force writers to consider several different kinds of damage and armor scales that each have different situations that kick in... it just becomes too painful to write while thinking about all of that. Similarly, if you force entrants to read the Magna Carta and look for the sentence that affects their design it's not very fun. I think we've all realized that by now. On the flipside without any damage scale at all, we go back to the years when 5 armor robots could beat 14 weapon spinners.
Last edited by BEES on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mole55
Posts: 353
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Metagame Analysis

Post by Mole55 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:50 pm

The problem with writer's discretion is that that can become unwritten rules, which can be just as bad for newcomers. For example: 4wd static wedges, and traction ratios. When I started out, they weren't in the rules iirc. Hence Dock Leaf being a giant mess.

User avatar
V900
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Ironic joke location where I don't actually live.

Metagame Analysis

Post by V900 » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:12 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Mole55</dt><dd>Jan 28 2018, 05:50 PM</dd></dl><div>The problem with writer's discretion is that that can become unwritten rules, which can be just as bad for newcomers.[/quote]ding ding ding, we have a winner folks.

I don't even know how many various questions I had to ask in the discord chat back when I was making my CBC2 robots (it was many, I can assure you that much), because of all the unwritten stuff in the ARC rules. That's why I explicitly wrote down rules for R4 like what wedges get under each other, and including a link to the namesake of the Parabolic Trajectory rule.

Although it was already enforced in the regular rules without telling anyone, it helps to have it explained for people who don't have the entire ruleset memorized front-to-back.
Image

User avatar
Madman
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Fighting in the shade

Metagame Analysis

Post by Madman » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:49 pm

I know that I've mainly appeared to support the fuzzy rule set up to now, but it's not an entirely accurate representation of my opinion. To be totally unhelpful here and solve nothing, I'll just say that I'm of two minds here.

I do think that the metabastard game needs to have the brakes put on it, and I say that as one of the most vicious of metabastards. It's a game that I can win, but it gets exhausting and less than fun after awhile. However, I disagree with the assertion that it discourages creativity in designs. Firebird, despite being walker trash, was a fundamentally creative design. Black Dog definitely pushed the numbers to their limits but was a unique approach to a drum bot. Both won titles.

In terms of a fuzzy ruleset, I've heard people claim that it definitely allows more room for bias in results. It straight up does, and that's something that I'm very leery about, especially as someone who's not really a member of ARC's inner circle. However, the current ruleset has its own biases. The only difference is that these come into play ahead of tournaments, when the rules are being discussed. Think of the million and one Alex-vs-Gabe clashes, for example. Both played the metabastard game to its hilt but had different design and build philosophies. You have everyone jockeying for the set of rules that they like most and that benefits their preferred designs and weapon types. That's one of the reasons that the run-up to majors has become so painful and full of BS and acrimony. Depending on who does the best job of getting their preferred provisions into the ruleset, when the tournament starts, certain designs are markedly better off than others. The entire makeup of the tournament is biased.

A 'fuzzy' rule set sounds good in theory, and I'm not against piloting it in practice for a mid-tier tournament. The only way to really evaluate it is to see it in action.
Last edited by Madman on Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ARC Record: 420-1

Pretty much the best person on ARC

Post Reply