Some discussion on the rules

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

Moderator: Tournament Hosts

Post Reply
User avatar
Venice Queen
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Team: ‽ Robotics

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Venice Queen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:15 pm

alright so Kody's post in the FRR discussion turned into a conversation on facebook which brought up some interesting points that people seem to think need changing/improving, so I was thinking we could get the opinions of the rest of the forum on these matters. that was a long sentence :v: . also included in my list are some popular themes for debate in the past month or so. feel free to agree/disagree/add new ideas, but have a reason for advocating for whatever it is you want, and do keep things civil :P

-Melty-brain spinners are currently not affected by self-KO rules, according to the wording of the rules. this is quite unrealistic, and easily fix-able

-Melty-brains also should have some sort of bonus, because as it is, they seem to be at a bit of a natural disadvantage in our meta. people seemed to like the thing Badnik did where they got an automatic +3 to their weapon (making it easy for them to move at about 4 speed, which is pretty reasonable). I also think that their weapon should be limited to something like 6.

-currently weapon armor (and therefore self-damage), is calculated pre-bonus, meaning that designs like Papercuts can occur, where a robot has a paper-thin armor but no self KO-chance because most of its armor is in its wedge. I'm ambivalent about this, but at least one person so far has expressed distaste for it - so thoughts?

-the walker bonus should be reduced, I think to either 33 or 34

-I also think that there should be some sort of limit on how many different types of weapons a robot is allowed to have. as cool as Mastodon is, it's kind of bullshit that it has three weapons systems that are almost entirely different to face. yes, it is potentially realistic (Ultimo Destructo is really three completely different robots that they could use :P ), but I don't like it from a strategy perspective - each design has compromises and strengths, and to simply be able to attach any design to your robot removes that part of strategy.

also, sorry if I picked on your robot, I needed examples :v: . don't take it personally, I've done some manipulation of the rules myself in ways that later encouraged fixing of rules (cough cough Glass Cannon cough cough). DISCUSS!
‽ ROBOTICS
CHAMPIONS: Lightweight//Ruination 4//Nick's Fuzzy Rules -- -- Hobbyweight//Bot-o-Rama//Buzzkill -- -- Arbitraryweight//D12//Listen Here, Grandad, This Is America, Everyone Here Eats Ass

Bots that I think are better than my actual champions: Chimera // Venice Queen // Cuddle Time!


V900? Wheres V1-899 ~NickyDustyOwl
fridge ~ V900

Wasn't Ted Bundy physically attractive though? ~Superbomb122
get a room ~Madbull
I will NOT ~Superbomb122



Image

patrickrowberry
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: uk worcester
Contact:

Some discussion on the rules

Post by patrickrowberry » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:10 pm

meltys need no more advantage has they already have the advantage of being hard to deal with and get hold of form many types of robots

if a robot goes in with 8 wedge armour but 2 amour for the rest of the robot every time they get hit on the side that isn't the wedge it should be fatale

walker bonbons is ok they have disadvantages to make it fair

as long as people send every attachment/ weapon and there is logical then it should be ok
you could say that attachments can't be higher then 2

and if they go in with a complete different weapon make it so e.g if 1 weapon alteration is a flipper and anther if a spinner they can't change there numbers between fights and can only have a maximum weapon power of 12 if they have 2 or more weapon chages

User avatar
Cha0sFerret
Posts: 1139
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Florida

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Cha0sFerret » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:22 pm

To add to the walker bonus reduction: maybe a slight reduction on the walker speed cap is needed. The current speed cap of 5 works just fine until we look at stuff like Defiance and compare it to similar non-walker designs. Most horizontal spinners that have a +4 weapon armor bonus have 5 speed, even with wheels. We can also see this problem with overhead spinners, which normally sit around 4 speed, walker or not. Currently I don't see any reason not to make every spinner a walker if there's no drivetrain sacrifice for the extra points. I would like to propose reducing the speed cap to 3.
Last edited by Cha0sFerret on Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
poopity scoop

Mystic2000
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: France
Team: Myst Inc

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Mystic2000 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:28 pm

honestly i'm not sure if the fact that melty don't self KO really matters, i get that it's unrealistic, but low armor and the fact that a melty is in theory easier to stop than a normal spinner means it really won't make them op, that and the fact that current melties don't even get in the self-ko range, means that the only thing gained by this change would be from a realism standpoint

User avatar
Venice Queen
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Team: ‽ Robotics

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Venice Queen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:43 pm

From Skype:

[12:29:06 PM] Bob, Tr
‽ ROBOTICS
CHAMPIONS: Lightweight//Ruination 4//Nick's Fuzzy Rules -- -- Hobbyweight//Bot-o-Rama//Buzzkill -- -- Arbitraryweight//D12//Listen Here, Grandad, This Is America, Everyone Here Eats Ass

Bots that I think are better than my actual champions: Chimera // Venice Queen // Cuddle Time!


V900? Wheres V1-899 ~NickyDustyOwl
fridge ~ V900

Wasn't Ted Bundy physically attractive though? ~Superbomb122
get a room ~Madbull
I will NOT ~Superbomb122



Image

User avatar
Hooray For Lexan
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Hooray For Lexan » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:53 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>The_Angry_Goat</dt><dd>Jun 7 2016, 01:15 PM</dd></dl><div>alright so Kody's post in the FRR discussion turned into a conversation on facebook which brought up some interesting points that people seem to think need changing/improving, so I was thinking we could get the opinions of the rest of the forum on these matters. that was a long sentence :v: . also included in my list are some popular themes for debate in the past month or so. feel free to agree/disagree/add new ideas, but have a reason for advocating for whatever it is you want, and do keep things civil :P

-Melty-brain spinners are currently not affected by self-KO rules, according to the wording of the rules. this is quite unrealistic, and easily fix-able

-Melty-brains also should have some sort of bonus, because as it is, they seem to be at a bit of a natural disadvantage in our meta. people seemed to like the thing Badnik did where they got an automatic +3 to their weapon (making it easy for them to move at about 4 speed, which is pretty reasonable). I also think that their weapon should be limited to something like 6.

-currently weapon armor (and therefore self-damage), is calculated pre-bonus, meaning that designs like Papercuts can occur, where a robot has a paper-thin armor but no self KO-chance because most of its armor is in its wedge. I'm ambivalent about this, but at least one person so far has expressed distaste for it - so thoughts?

-the walker bonus should be reduced, I think to either 33 or 34

-I also think that there should be some sort of limit on how many different types of weapons a robot is allowed to have. as cool as Mastodon is, it's kind of bullshit that it has three weapons systems that are almost entirely different to face. yes, it is potentially realistic (Ultimo Destructo is really three completely different robots that they could use :P ), but I don't like it from a strategy perspective - each design has compromises and strengths, and to simply be able to attach any design to your robot removes that part of strategy.

also, sorry if I picked on your robot, I needed examples :v: . don't take it personally, I've done some manipulation of the rules myself in ways that later encouraged fixing of rules (cough cough Glass Cannon cough cough). DISCUSS&#33;[/quote]<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>-Melty-brain spinners are currently not affected by self-KO rules, according to the wording of the rules. this is quite unrealistic, and easily fix-able

-Melty-brains also should have some sort of bonus, because as it is, they seem to be at a bit of a natural disadvantage in our meta. people seemed to like the thing Badnik did where they got an automatic +3 to their weapon (making it easy for them to move at about 4 speed, which is pretty reasonable). I also think that their weapon should be limited to something like 6.
[/quote]

All right. I think that the way to balance melties is to compare their performance to a ring spinner, and to real-life melties. So, let's consider a ring spinner with 4 speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 weapon, and 8 armor (10 weapon armor). This robot spins up pretty quickly, the drivetrain is fully effective with the weapon at low speed, and it has 10 weapon armor. An equivalent melty would have 1 weapon -> 4 translational speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 speed -> 15 weapon, and can go up to 11 armor. The melty is a little sturdier, but in practice it'll need to take a point or two out of speed and put it into traction. It's not terrible balance-wise, but what about realism?

First of all, a limit of 6 translational speed is insane. That's equivalent to the faster spinners. Each point of speed in ARC seems to be equivalent to around 2-3 MPH of top speed based on how fast robots actually move, and a melty translating that quickly is ridiculous: IRL I don't think there's a single melty that can exceed walking pace. A realistic maximum is a translational speed of 3, with no bonus.

Second: melties IRL don't seem to spin up that much slower than a shell spinner, but have a tendency to hockey-puck around the arena to a degree not seen in other spinners. I think the best way to simulate this would be to make spinup independent of traction just like a normal spinner, but the distance melties launch themselves away in an impact should be increased to (weapon - traction), vs. (weapon - traction)/2 for a normal spinner. If you want spinup to be traction-dependent, do something like add a +3 bonus to the effective traction score for purposes of determining spinup time.

Under these rules, I could build a ring spinner with the same speed as a melty, with stats: 3 speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 weapon, 9 armor (11 weapon armor). An equivalent melty could have a reasonable spinup at the expense of throwing itself around the arena. However, it would have only 9 weapon armor, which is really weak. IMO melties still need to at least have a bonus to their teeth to be competitive.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>-currently weapon armor (and therefore self-damage), is calculated pre-bonus, meaning that designs like Papercuts can occur, where a robot has a paper-thin armor but no self KO-chance because most of its armor is in its wedge. I'm ambivalent about this, but at least one person so far has expressed distaste for it - so thoughts?
[/quote]

Ehh, having a sturdy weapon and a sturdy internal structure holding it together, a shock-mounted wedge, but really shitty paper-thin armor on the rest of the robot isn't really unrealistic, and honestly the strategy isn't that good. The only time Papercuts's non-weapon armor was relevant it lost (although Vorpal Bunny being a silly design might've had something to do with that), and that was at Bot-O-Rama. Pulling that in any other tournament is basically begging to be one-shotted by hazards. It's definitely not OP. However, I do think it's a good idea to ban applying armor bonuses to robots where most of the hittable surface area already receives a weapon armor bonus. Overheads ought to be okay, but a shell or ring spinner doing it is just silly.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>-the walker bonus should be reduced, I think to either 33 or 34[/quote]

I agree: IMO 34 should be fine.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>-I also think that there should be some sort of limit on how many different types of weapons a robot is allowed to have. as cool as Mastodon is, it's kind of bullshit that it has three weapons systems that are almost entirely different to face. yes, it is potentially realistic (Ultimo Destructo is really three completely different robots that they could use :P ), but I don't like it from a strategy perspective - each design has compromises and strengths, and to simply be able to attach any design to your robot removes that part of strategy.[/quote]

I have an idea: to account for the fact that the weapon must be build around an interchangeable pod instead of being integral to the robot structure, for every alternate weapon configuration a robot can have which is radically different in function (i.e. not something like a hammer head with a different shape, or Sewer Snake style forks vs. an anti-spinner plow), the power of ALL the configurations must be reduced by one. Mastodon would have all its weapons' power reduced by 2.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>To add to the walker bonus reduction: maybe a slight reduction on the walker speed cap is needed. The current speed cap of 5 works just fine until we look at stuff like Defiance and compare it to similar non-walker designs. Most horizontal spinners that have a +4 weapon armor bonus have 5 speed, even with wheels. We can also see this problem with overhead spinners, which normally sit around 4 speed, walker or not. Currently I don't see any reason not to make every spinner a walker if there's no drivetrain sacrifice for the extra points. I would like to propose reducing the speed cap to 3. [/quote]

As someone who built a walker in an attempt to make a weapon type that's ordinarily not viable actually useful (i.e. crushers), please no. With a cap of 3 speed, the ONLY viable weapon for a walker is either a shell or overhead spinner, or something with a turret.

One other thing that might be workable is implementing a hard cap to the power of certain weapons (e.g. hammers have a limit of 14, spinners have a limit of 17). This is realistically explainable as an event not wanting robots powerful enough to punch giant holes in the floor or fling shrapnel through the walls.

User avatar
Venice Queen
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Team: ‽ Robotics

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Venice Queen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:36 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>HotDealsInTexas</dt><dd>Jun 7 2016, 04:53 PM</dd></dl><div>All right. I think that the way to balance melties is to compare their performance to a ring spinner, and to real-life melties. So, let's consider a ring spinner with 4 speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 weapon, and 8 armor (10 weapon armor). This robot spins up pretty quickly, the drivetrain is fully effective with the weapon at low speed, and it has 10 weapon armor. An equivalent melty would have 1 weapon -> 4 translational speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 speed -> 15 weapon, and can go up to 11 armor. The melty is a little sturdier, but in practice it'll need to take a point or two out of speed and put it into traction. It's not terrible balance-wise, but what about realism?

First of all, a limit of 6 translational speed is insane. That's equivalent to the faster spinners. Each point of speed in ARC seems to be equivalent to around 2-3 MPH of top speed based on how fast robots actually move, and a melty translating that quickly is ridiculous: IRL I don't think there's a single melty that can exceed walking pace. A realistic maximum is a translational speed of 3, with no bonus.

Second: melties IRL don't seem to spin up that much slower than a shell spinner, but have a tendency to hockey-puck around the arena to a degree not seen in other spinners. I think the best way to simulate this would be to make spinup independent of traction just like a normal spinner, but the distance melties launch themselves away in an impact should be increased to (weapon - traction), vs. (weapon - traction)/2 for a normal spinner. If you want spinup to be traction-dependent, do something like add a +3 bonus to the effective traction score for purposes of determining spinup time.

Under these rules, I could build a ring spinner with the same speed as a melty, with stats: 3 speed, 2 traction, 1 torque, 15 weapon, 9 armor (11 weapon armor). An equivalent melty could have a reasonable spinup at the expense of throwing itself around the arena. However, it would have only 9 weapon armor, which is really weak. IMO melties still need to at least have a bonus to their teeth to be competitive.

[/quote]as a counter-argument to a lot of your ideas about melties, may I present Scary-go-Round?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKol3MhsvvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SGAsh7C6AU

it translates quite quickly, doesn't experience a lot of knockback, and spins at a comparitively low RPM.
‽ ROBOTICS
CHAMPIONS: Lightweight//Ruination 4//Nick's Fuzzy Rules -- -- Hobbyweight//Bot-o-Rama//Buzzkill -- -- Arbitraryweight//D12//Listen Here, Grandad, This Is America, Everyone Here Eats Ass

Bots that I think are better than my actual champions: Chimera // Venice Queen // Cuddle Time!


V900? Wheres V1-899 ~NickyDustyOwl
fridge ~ V900

Wasn't Ted Bundy physically attractive though? ~Superbomb122
get a room ~Madbull
I will NOT ~Superbomb122



Image

User avatar
Badnik96
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 12:00 am
Location: somewhere in the plane of existence
Contact:

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Badnik96 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:18 pm

Okay how about this instead. Total weapon and speed for melty-brain spinners cannot exceed 18. This allows for decent balance while also being realistic. (we had a similar rule like this back in the days of the Wedge stat where wedge and armor couldn't exceed a certain number, so there is precedent for this)

Also I would agree with the tooth bonus as weapon armor for melty-brains, perhaps make it only 2 to keep it balanced.

I like HDIT's idea about melty brain traction as well. That sounds pretty nice.

This would allow for:

Speed: 14
Weapon: 3
Armor: 9 (+2 to the teeth due to weapon armor)
Traction: 4
Torque: 1

which seems decently equivalent to most of the shell spinners, though a little less maneuverable.


Honestly, a walker bonus of 34 still seems a little high for me. 33 sounds about right.
Team Ignition
Redline: Robot Bastards 1 LW champ
Pyrite: FRR Backlash LW champ
The Debilitator: Cherry Bomb Classic 1 LW champ
Sling Shot: Bot O' Rama 2016 Sportsman champ
Doomerang: Robot Fight Night HW champ

User avatar
Badnik96
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 12:00 am
Location: somewhere in the plane of existence
Contact:

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Badnik96 » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:25 pm

Hey while we're here, do we want to discuss adding a damage scale for cutting weapons like saws etc? Between my use of Tesla's Revenge and some of the robots on this season of BB I expect them to be getting a little more popular in the near future.
Team Ignition
Redline: Robot Bastards 1 LW champ
Pyrite: FRR Backlash LW champ
The Debilitator: Cherry Bomb Classic 1 LW champ
Sling Shot: Bot O' Rama 2016 Sportsman champ
Doomerang: Robot Fight Night HW champ

User avatar
Venice Queen
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Team: ‽ Robotics

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Venice Queen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:27 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Badnik96</dt><dd>Jun 7 2016, 06:18 PM</dd></dl><div>though a little less maneuverable.
[/quote]the slight loss of manueverability would be countered by their ability to move omni-directionally, though due to the melty-brain programming.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Badnik96</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>Hey while we're here, do we want to discuss adding a damage scale for cutting weapons like saws etc? Between my use of Tesla's Revenge and some of the robots on this season of BB I expect them to be getting a little more popular in the near future.[/quote]

I'd like to see something where the weapon-armor difference has to do with the amount of time it takes to cut through the armor, though I'm not entirely sure how that would pan out
Last edited by Venice Queen on Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
‽ ROBOTICS
CHAMPIONS: Lightweight//Ruination 4//Nick's Fuzzy Rules -- -- Hobbyweight//Bot-o-Rama//Buzzkill -- -- Arbitraryweight//D12//Listen Here, Grandad, This Is America, Everyone Here Eats Ass

Bots that I think are better than my actual champions: Chimera // Venice Queen // Cuddle Time!


V900? Wheres V1-899 ~NickyDustyOwl
fridge ~ V900

Wasn't Ted Bundy physically attractive though? ~Superbomb122
get a room ~Madbull
I will NOT ~Superbomb122



Image

User avatar
Hooray For Lexan
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Hooray For Lexan » Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:21 pm

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>as a counter-argument to a lot of your ideas about melties, may I present Scary-go-Round?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKol3MhsvvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SGAsh7C6AU

it translates quite quickly, doesn't experience a lot of knockback, and spins at a comparitively low RPM.[/quote]

It's still not translating more than maybe 2-3 feet per second. Also, you could easily make Scary-Go-Round suffer almost no knockback by making its traction equal or exceed its speed (effectively weapon) score - which is quite reasonable because its rotational speed, and hence weapon power, is as you said really low.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>Okay how about this instead. Total weapon and speed for melty-brain spinners cannot exceed 18. This allows for decent balance while also being realistic. (we had a similar rule like this back in the days of the Wedge stat where wedge and armor couldn't exceed a certain number, so there is precedent for this)[/quote]

That sounds reasonable, but unnecessary. Charybdis has a combined speed/weapon score of 18, and I would never go higher than that because doing so would require huge sacrifices in armor and traction. Blazing around the arena at 5 speed isn't that useful if you only have 9 weapon armor and can get ripped open by a midcutter that also has 5 speed.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>the slight loss of manueverability would be countered by their ability to move omni-directionally, though due to the melty-brain programming.[/quote]

True, but right now there's nothing stopping you from putting omni wheels or swerve drive on your shell spinner.
<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>
Hey while we're here, do we want to discuss adding a damage scale for cutting weapons like saws etc? Between my use of Tesla's Revenge and some of the robots on this season of BB I expect them to be getting a little more popular in the near future.[/quote]

I created a cutting weapon damage scale for Bot-O-Rama; this could be a starting point. I figure they should function somewhat like hammers where they treat everything like a corner, but require a couple seconds of contact to cause serious damage.

6G: Cutting weapons, including saws, drills, and chainsaws, are governed by the following rules:
i: a single-degree of freedom "arm" holding a cutting weapon only requires 1 weapon power to function.
ii: cutting weapons do NOT receive any weapon armor bonus regardless of their power. high-hardness sawblades are fragile: treat them with care.
iii: damage is dealt according to the following rules:
Flat Surface Damage -

0 - No damage: The saw or drill skitters over the armor or is stopped by it.

1 - Minor Damage: The saw or drill scrapes over the armor and stops without penetrating fully. No chance of a knockout.

2 - Average Damage: The saw or drill creates a small hole or shallow cut after extended contact with the same spot.

3 - Significant Damage: A significant cut is formed. Wheels may have their treads shredded or ripped off, compromising their function, and exposed belts or chains may be severed.

4 - Major Damage: Deep cuts are formed, with repeated attacks compromising the integrity of armor and allowing internal components to be damaged.

5+ - Catastrophic Damage: Every attack threatens a knockout due to internal damage. Armor will be severely cut, and structural members may be cut through.

User avatar
The Monsterworks
Posts: 1308
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 12:00 am
Location: Canada, for now
Team: The Monsterworks

Some discussion on the rules

Post by The Monsterworks » Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:55 am

So, with regards to melty-fbs hybrids, they're potentially problematic in terms of the rules, so I propose the following: Having them subject to the multi-weapon rule is ridiculous, since a drivetrain is fundamentally not an active weapon, though it can be used in a similar way.

While I was hoping to avoid having to say this, the real weakness of the melty-fbs system is the fact that it might be able to move with 8 speed while driving normally, but once it engages its melty drive, there's no realistic way that it'd be able to translate that quickly. Therefore, I'd propose something like a 50% movement penalty while a melty-fbs is translating. Basically, it translates with half of its speed stat. Hell, maybe even 1/4.

Furthermore, there was discussion about buffing melties before the whole melty-fbs debate. Instead of having their weapon power count for speed, which is just dumb, why not have their translating speed just equal 1/4 of their actual speed stat. That way they get a few free points to throw into traction or another stat and they won't be at a disadvantage in the meta.
Last edited by The Monsterworks on Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mastodon... Extinction (HW)
Osiris... Armageddon! (MW)
Elrathia... ROBOTS (LW)
Magnolia Pico... Ruination 4 (MW)
RipTide... ROBOT2 (FW)
Black Diamond... Cherry Bomb Classic 3 (HW)
MADSCIENCE... ROBOTS 3 (LW)
Abyss... ROBOTS 3 (MW)


The Monsterworks: 214-57 (.790) ...Probably up to no good.
Cherry Bomb Classic IV: 25-4
Finishing Move: 6-2
Magnolia Pico: 6-1
Magnolia Grande: 6-1
Glacier III: 7-0
ROBOTS 3: 21-6
Sixpounder: 3-4
MADSCIENCE: 9-1 Champion!
Abyss: 9-1 Champion!

Mystic2000
Posts: 740
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: France
Team: Myst Inc

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Mystic2000 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:10 am

makes sense and also creates a weakness to fast bots while spinning up... maybe now people won't require nerfs on this

Wolf51-50
Posts: 823
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in the USA

Some discussion on the rules

Post by Wolf51-50 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:34 am

I'm not to sure about melties, but I might be able to cover some thing on the other topics. What if Swiss army bots could have a limit of two moving weapons, but are limited by types. Spinners are limited to two weapons, wedges and lifters are limited to three, but it must be a design for their type (Ex: you wouldn't see Sewer Snake with a pneumatic flipper or a spinning blade would you?). For hammerbots, they are limited to two and can only have either a lifter, a plow, or a different type of hammer depending on how the rules play out (I think we can work from here on more exotic designs like crushers). And I think it would be ok to have the walker bonus be 34.
Alpha Robotics - Embrace the carnage!

Recent Tournaments:

ROBOT2
FW: Apocalyptic Peacekeeper (2-3)
LW: Backstab 3 (3-3) [Lifetime 11-8]
MW: Outrage 2 (4-1) [Lifetime 6-3]
HW: Tulta Munille (3-2)

Ruination: The Upheavel
LW: White Lightning (1-6) [Lifetime 4-8]
MW: Diablo Genesis (5-3) [Lifetime 10-5]
HW: Coup de Grâce (2-5) [Lifetime 13-9]
SHW: Fenrir (6-2) [Lifetime 7-3]

Reckoning: The Revival
MW: Vovoka (4-1) [Lifetime 10-3]

tune in next time on ARC when I one-up Boto by posting my vast collection of Thomas The Tank Engine hentai on the Discord :V -HFL

Post Reply