A Unique Idea Concerning Wedge Stats

Post by **That Kode Guy** » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:06 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Spatula</dt><dd>Jul 19 2013, 11:52 PM</dd></dl><div> I find the tendency to drift away from realism very un-fun actually. In fact, the less real it becomes the less fun it becomes. That's the tradeoff you have to consider. [/quote]
Well then, the only thing I can say to this is to host your own tournament then, Nick. Seriously. Your pushing for more realism here is getting a bit tiresome. I'll say it again. ARC/CFL leagues are for everyone. EVERYONE. Most of the newcomers here aren't going to know the first thing about the technical aspects of robots, and shoving more realism in the system just makes it less fun for THEM. Hell, even most of the vets (no offense Chris, Alex, Josh, etc) don't even know most technical aspects! We're not going to change our ways and make things overly hard for them just so one guy can have more fun.

Now, on FRA, yes I would encourage realism, because people who visit FRA as a whole are more technical people, or at least that's what it's seemed like. You know me, Nick, I like the FRA system just as much as you do, and just as much as I like ARC. I'm nowhere near the best at it, but I'm happy with it and am still willing to enter shit. I joined GF93's thing, which is similar to many FRA-style tournies. Hell, I even enjoy your Byte Size mini-tourneys, and I hired you as a writer for Ruination 2 (though that's mainly because I know you're a good writer, and I want to know how you'd write results under the current ARC system)! Again, host your own tournament. I'll enter like white on rice.

However, you can't take one system and shove stuff from it into another. That will pretty much kill fun for newbies and pretty much anyone without tech knowledge in general. I don't know if this is what you were aiming for, but we don't need to inter-mingle the systems. FRA has its thing, and ARC has its own, and both communities are comfortable. Let's leave it at that.

I apologize if this came across as a rant, but I'm glad to have gotten it off my chest.

BEES · Post by **BEES** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:14 am

I like the stat system. I don't have the time or energy to pound out FRA-style stats for several bots. Just because a tourney uses a stat system doesn't mean you have to completely abandon realism. I completely hear you on the need for accessibility. I still think the changes I proposed would make things easier in addition to being more realistic and more fun.

Change #1 - wedge points cannot exceed traction points
Change #2 - traction no longer has to be equal to the robot's wheelpower, instead it's a freeform stat like the others
Change #3 - if weapon power is greater than an armor stat it will do localized damage, if it is 1.5x the armor stat it will do severe damage.

That looks very simple and easy to understand, to me. Compare that to this:

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>
Note #4: Wedge Effectiveness absolutely can NOT go over 5 points for 3 or more wheel drives, or 7 points for 2WD. Robots that have flippers/lifters/whatever, or hinged wedging/skirting will by-pass this rule, but only for those pieces stated. Robots that have a static wedge AND any of the above pieces are allowed more than 7 points in wedge effectiveness, but then that applies to only the lifters or hinged wedges/skirts. The static wedge, depending on the robot's number of wheels, will have its value either 5 or 7.
[/quote]

I'm still trying to figure this one out. There are so many places in the stats where there are exceptions nested in exceptions ad infinitum. How is that accessible?

Hey, I know it would be a lot at once to do something like that. I'll write a Byte Size with those rules + ARC stats and see how people like it. Otherwise I propose we adopt just the first rule in the immediate future to keep wedges from racing into more and more ridiculous territory. How's that sound?

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>Well then, the only thing I can say to this is to host your own tournament then, Nick. Seriously.[/quote]
That's all well and good. I cannot enter my own tournaments. I wouldn't dare write my own results. I sure as hell can't look at my bots objectively. So I am forever at the mercy of fighting under other people's rules.

NWOWWE · Post by **NWOWWE** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:45 am

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>I sympathize, but I fail to see how the wedge stat solves this issue since everybody is going to have 6-8 points on it anyway, and you almost always will end up with two apparently evenly matched wedges. What has been accomplished here? I used to support a wedge stat and I admit my guilt, but now I see that it has done nothing to answer this question, while in the meantime it's made it so you can't have a main weapon and a backup wedge, because a 1-point wedge does basically nothing.[/quote]
With the recent addendum to the wedge stat rule not everyone is in that small wedge range now. You're starting to see some 5 and even 4 point wedges now. And to be fair, this is the first time we're doing a tournament with this change (and it was implemented pretty close to the last minute) so you can't expect significant change all at once. I don't mind letting this newer interpretation play out for another season or two and give it it's fair shake.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>I find the tendency to drift away from realism very un-fun actually. In fact, the less real it becomes the less fun it becomes. That's the tradeoff you have to consider. [/quote]
Okay, I'm not sure you understand the point here. "Not going overboard with realism" doesn't mean we're encouraging people to come up with designs that are absurd or anything. It's mostly a matter of we don't want to nitpick saying "oh that bot couldn't possibly contain powerful enough motors to support that weapon power" or otherwise get too technical. If people WANT to design robots with realism in mind, that's perfectly fine, but they aren't going to get favoritism for it.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>I think the traction stat should be more like the torque stat, where most bots can afford to have just two or three points on it and only specialized designs need more. Then it would be strategic. Then it would reflect how much of a robot's real weight actually goes towards traction[/quote]
No offense but this makes no sense at all to me. What strategy comes from having another stat with a range of only a couple points (1-3)? At that rate you might as well recombine it with torque. And if you did that, you'd be EXACTLY where we were back in the Vengeance era days. EVERYONE complained about Torque being a "dump stat" because 99% of spinners only gave it 1 point, and so wedge/rammers only needed 2 or 3 points at most. Giving it more was a complete waste. Granted Torque as it is separately now is still in the same kind of position, but time has shown us it needs to be there. We did away with it once and just had traction, but it didn't quite work out.

To be perfectly frank, I think we're getting to the point where Traction as it stands now DOES have more strategy then your suggestion here does. We have more people willing to forgo better Speed/Traction ratios in favor of higher speeds. It's a calculated risk, but it has seen success.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>I'm frankly equally bothered by the fact that despite having a game-like point system, a 14-point spinner's weapon can be stopped sometimes by as little as 5-point armor, but other times it will damage 8-point armor. The amount of power a spinner needs seems to be very convoluted. There should be a concrete answer by now. If a spinner has (x) weapon, it will damage (x-y) armor. But I think that might be more a product of inconsistent interpretations between writers. [/quote]
I can see where you're coming from on this one. At the same time such weapon/armor disparity is still kind of rare, but yeah there has been some inconsistency on this in places.

Of course I don't think at least part of you minded when 2 armored Parasite was able to survive battles against other power spinners :P (tongue-in-cheek comment)

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>
Change #1 - wedge points cannot exceed traction points
Change #2 - traction no longer has to be equal to the robot's wheelpower, instead it's a freeform stat like the others
Change #3 - if weapon power is greater than an armor stat it will do localized damage, if it is 1.5x the armor stat it will do severe damage.[/quote]
Change 1, I don't really have any qualms with.

Change 2, I guess by wheelpower you mean Speed. Well it doesn't have to equal Speed, but if it doesn't you start seeing more control issues. I'm sorry, but I fail to see any issues with this system as it is currently applied.

Change 3, Strictly speaking this should mostly be the case anyway.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>
I'm still trying to figure this one out. There are so many places in the stats where there are exceptions nested in exceptions ad infinitum. How is that accessible?[/quote]
Um, most of the exceptions rarely come up and generally only have to be pointed out because one or two bots a season might run into the situation or because somewhere along the line someone asked "well what if I do this, then how does the rule apply".

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>Hey, I know it would be a lot at once to do something like that. I'll write a Byte Size with those rules + ARC stats and see how people like it. Otherwise I propose we adopt just the first rule in the immediate future to keep wedges from racing into more and more ridiculous territory. How's that sound?[/quote]
Okay, I'm going to throw down a blanket comment for this: No one is required to use the ARC rule system for a tournament they run. Ruination, Crazy Bots, LoRE, and whatever else can use whatever rule set they would want to come up with. If they chose to use the ARC rules, then that's fine. I use the ARC rules for FRR because it's "my" tournament and the de facto "official" ARC tournament nowadays and I will continue running with the ARC rules until someone else devises a different system that I think is legitimately better and gets positive response from the community as a whole. And as seen with my acceptance of NFX's patch to the wedge-stat rule, I'm not opposed to tweaking with the system, but at this point I don't see any need for a wholesale retooling of the whole thing.

Post by **That Kode Guy** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:58 am

Of course, then you have the whole proposal of removing the wedge stat entirely, of which Josh disapproves of, but Alex MW approves of...

Post by **MadBull** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:09 am

here is something I improvised in a chat with Kody, read at your own peril

[17:00:18] Martijn: in real world robotics, the wedge is a "cheap" weapon
[17:00:55] Martijn: that is what the wedge is, takes little weight, can be implemented on nearly every design, cool
[17:01:18] Martijn: with the fact that in ARC I have to invest a significant amount of points to make my wedge work, NOTHING is left of what the wedge is all about
[17:01:59] Martijn: this is robot combat, the wedge is a very very unique weapon
[17:02:05] Martijn: in its simplicity
[17:02:16] Martijn: I want SOME of that to shine through into ARC
[17:03:29] Martijn: and I propose
[17:03:58] Martijn: if we done wanna have wedges be ENTIRELY free... (because that would overpower rammers)
[17:04:03] Martijn: dont*
[17:04:12] Martijn: maybe have a maximum?
[17:04:22] Martijn: say that wedges can have a maximum of 3?
[17:04:26] Martijn: or 4 or 5
[17:04:29] Martijn: something like that
[17:04:40] Martijn: that way with 5 stat points you have the best wedge possible
[17:04:54] Martijn: aka you have an excellent weapon for 5 stat points
[17:04:58] Martijn: whereas with a spinner
[17:05:08] Martijn: you have to go in the regions of 12 before it becomes "excellent"
[17:05:30] Martijn: that way the wedge is still cheap... which corresponds with what the wedge is all about in real world robotics

NWOWWE · Post by **NWOWWE** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:23 am

But we didn't want wedges to be cheap or blatantly overpowered. That's one of the primary reasons the wedge stat was introduced in the first place. All that proposal will do will be to over saturate the tournaments with wedges again leaving active weapon bots like spinners in the dust again. With less points in wedge Armor and drive stats will go up to more ridiculous levels again.

Post by **MadBull** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:34 am

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>But we didn't want wedges to be cheap or blatantly overpowered. That's one of the primary reasons the wedge stat was introduced in the first place.[/quote]

If I wanted wedges to be cheap or blatantly overpowered I would have proposed to ditc the wedge stat entirely, effectively making them free as they once were.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>All that proposal will do will be to over saturate the tournaments with wedges again leaving active weapon bots like spinners in the dust again.[/quote]

That really depends at how you define the maximum that I proposed. If a rambot has to invest 4 or 5 ish points, I guarantee you rambots will not be as overpowered in armour or speed as they were in the older days.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd> </dd></dl><div>With less points in wedge Armor and drive stats will go up to more ridiculous levels again. [/quote]

Like I said... that really depends on how you define the maximum. In real world robotics rambots tend to have slightly better armour and drive than say spinners. I know and respect ARC is not about realism but this is an aspect I do miss. Bear in mind I do in know way encourage to go back to the older days wedgewise because I DO see that back then wedgebots were overpowered.

playzooki · Post by **playzooki** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:26 am

10 should be maximum.

Siphai · Post by **Siphai** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:30 am

Post by **That Kode Guy** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:31 am

NFX · Post by **NFX** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:26 pm

I've just had an idea for this. Sort of ties in Martijn's idea on wedges with Spatch's idea on armour.

Static wedges are limited to x points, taking into account things like how many wheels you have and so forth. The limit would be less than it is at the moment, say 5 for 2WD machines and 3 for more wheels.
Hinged wedges can have as many points as they want, but their Armour is halved. Say a bot has 8 armour, their hinged wedges would have 4 Armour, and a powerful spinner could tear them off pretty easily.

Not too sure how this would affect weapons such as lifters, or some of the more substantial looking hinged wedges you see going around, but I think it could be a start.

Siphai · Post by **Siphai** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:10 pm

why would the wedge limit be different for a 'hinged wedge' and a '2 wheel wedge'. a 2 wheel wedge is a hinged wedge, the hinge is at the wheels.

playzooki · Post by **playzooki** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:15 pm

I agree.

NFX · Post by **NFX** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:42 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Siphai</dt><dd>Jul 20 2013, 06:10 PM</dd></dl><div> why would the wedge limit be different for a 'hinged wedge' and a '2 wheel wedge'. a 2 wheel wedge is a hinged wedge, the hinge is at the wheels. [/quote]
Not too sure about that one. Perhaps we'd just say the wedge at the front is worth whatever, and everywhere else is 0.

Post by **MadBull** » Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:47 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Siphai</dt><dd>Jul 20 2013, 07:10 PM</dd></dl><div> why would the wedge limit be different for a 'hinged wedge' and a '2 wheel wedge'. a 2 wheel wedge is a hinged wedge, the hinge is at the wheels. [/quote]
Do take into account though, that with a 2WD wedge like say Wheely Big Cheese, roughly 50% of the mass of the entire robot rests on the tip of the wedge (the other 50% resting on the wheels, roughly).

With a "normal" hinged wedge, merely 50% of the wedge rests on the floor (the other 50% resting on the hinge).

So the 2WD will "dig" into the ground a bit more thanks to the effects of gravity!