Armored core 4 teams

A specific PS3 game for 3 man team matches.
 
PortalPortal  HomeHome  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Ban "Banning".

Go down 
AuthorMessage
FOXFIRE_kadrpg

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2008-03-16

PostSubject: Ban "Banning".   Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:39 am

I have been out of the competition loop in Armored Core as of late, due to school, so this response is a bit late.

Impervious authorized teams to compete with "for Answer" if all members have a copy; this is good, but I just now read his stipulation: "No dual missiles, only 1 back mounted missile. You may use any missile with any extension with the exception of the spread back mounted missile or the spread shoulder extensions."

I moved my response to a new thread because I expect my response will easily digress into an argument.

Before I begin my rant, here is my philosophy when it comes to bans. They should be implemented only to remove such parts or designs that make the outcome a toss up. Not because they make someone stronger, not because they're easy to use, not because everyone is doing it, but for the sole reason that you cannot tell who is the better player because of the item. A Randomly-picks-the-winner-part would be an example, if simply pressing a button will end the game MAYBE in your favor, MAYBE in your opponents favor.

When I apply my rule for bans, I do take lag into consideration. In AC4, I thought stun weapons such as Bazookas and Machineguns (yes, machineguns) should be looked at, because there was a risk that the game would De-sync, providing a situation where the game's outcome became random.

Now, we have "for Answer" (some do, it ISN'T even out yet in the US) and we're already calling for build bans. This seems ridiculous to me, because I believe the motivation behind it is wrong; players calling for the ban are discomforted that they cannot play the way they want to, (since the mechanics are different) and are deaming something "too powerful" .

Rather than debate whether or not missles are strong, or what-you-can-do-about-them, I want to adress BANNING in general, and CAUTION everyone about the slippery slope of banning something because it is too powerful.

No competition, contest, or game, is going to be without the optimum strategy; a behavior and choice that provides the best chance to win. Some do not believe this, and that is part of the problem.

Remove any "too powerful" item from the game, (to be 'fair' folks), and it will be replaced by the "next powerful" item. Don't believe me? If you remove missles altogether from for Answer, you'll probably be assailed by dual rifle ACs, or sniper heavies. Remove whichever one of these is stronger, and you'll get the next one.

Now here is my bit of venom; Since the bans are not being called for because they create that random outcome; (indeed there are those that are better at missle spamming) they are being called for by players who have ALREADY MADE UP IN THEIR MIND HOW THEY WANT TO PLAY AND SEEK TO DECONSTRUCT THE GAME UNTIL IT PLAYS TO THEIR OPTIMUM PLAY STYLE.

For Answer gives you enough energy to Overboost for MUCH longer periods of time, and at speeds well over missle speeds (even in a heavy). The maps of for Answer, (provided you don't go to Underground or Normal Factory as some do) are large enough that ANY DESIGN can outlast any missle's fuel. It's just that people don't want to keep running, until the time is right. They don't want to equip heavy weaponry for heavy targets, because that's not what they're used to.

If you can prove to me that a build/part will produce an outcome completely unrelated to the skills of all involved, sure, ban it. But that is hardly the case. Now, or at any time.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Steel_Scyther

avatar

Posts : 28
Join date : 2008-03-05
Location : Chillin' with Chthulhu. ^^

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:33 pm

I wish I could remember who wrote:
If only I could overboost BACKWARDS, I'd be INVINCIBLE!
not from this site I don't think, and I might have it wrong. you just reminded me of that.

Anyhow, in AC4, I understand what you mean. The game system is set up to favor certain approaches.

That's why I miss Last Raven, where really the only cheap strategy was a light with dual H3 handguns (been a while, I think I have it right), but nobody uses that because it's not all that much fun, and STILL could be beaten by other designs.

it IS possible to make an AC game with balance, but AC4A, (which I might end up importing) has some more major issues. In this case, I have to agree with you Foxfire, and say: the game is about dodging missile barrages. get used to it. play a different game if you don't like it. For all I know, I may be very disappointed with AC4A, but I have to play it myself to see.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
impervious
Admin
avatar

Posts : 52
Join date : 2008-03-03
Age : 39
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:04 am

Hey yo, i was wondering why your team didn't show last Sunday.

To be completely honest, i totally agree with you. I'm in favor of not banning anything at all. I honestly don't really care at all what someone wants to bring to a match. Bring whatever you want. In fact when i host a room in Japan i now put the comment as "bring what u want" even though most all of the Japanese players will NOT play with ANY missiles what so ever because they are so powerful. I find it odd that they've all accumulatively came to that conclusion yet they still find AA to be A ok.. personally i think AA is even more powerful and noobish in my opinion but by all means bring it. Anyway, the only reason i figured there should be a spread missile ban in the league matches, is not only because its so fast killing but because it may discourage a lot of people whom aren't comfortable dodging them to even want to play on a team at all if they are present. If this isn't the case, perhaps we should run a poll or something.

That's my reason though.

_________________
"love can't save you only my new powers can do that" Episode III, Darth Vader may have nipples of steel but he tends to give me the dumb bumps in his earlier carrer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://armoredcore4teams.bigforumpro.com
Exo-Gen
Admin
avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2008-03-03

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:54 pm

Fox I hate banning too but with FA 1.00 those saline spreads are out of control. even VTF's too and those shoulders that fire 60 missiles per volley. you couple that with AA and DR's on a Lw and you have a recipe of cheese bullshit. the missiles are undogdable so once your KP is gone there is nothing to save you from saline rape. thatís retarded, fucking retorted, skilless and unfair. so ban that bullshit. part bans are ok if the matter has been investigated and debated. if you donít like part bans then how can you even agree with regulations. after all fox, if as you say some times that you donít believe there is such a thing as a cheap weapon set up or AC combo then regulations are a waste of time. what does it matter if I have a gun that shoots faster then any weapon in the game and has the highest attack power with the reload of a machine gun and ammo to match? it does not matter if with auto sighting all I need to do is sit there and hold the fire button down and they die in seconds. come on man. skill does matter with anything but some things require so little skill as compared to others that its broken.


oh and as for running from missiles. thats gay. let me tell you what the game biols down to in that case and any one who disagrees with me can come and fight me to find out. 4 things. AA missile spamm OB, and the speed or AP advantage. all one has to do in 1.00 is get missiles like high acts that cannot be avoided or salineís that rape you or VTF's and those shoulders that fire 90 billion missiles and you have something that cannot be avoided and if you get tagged only slightly it is thousands. thatís to strong so running is the smart option. well we have just eliminated close quarters combat because as long as I have enough ammo in my missiles I can keep you away for ever. now if I have the AP lead because I am a heavy then you wonr come near me. if you do I will AA you to either rape your AP completely your close or take out your KP. now you cant run from my missiles. this has forced you to keep your distance. now I can take cover and dodge forever anything you want to through at me. now with say a LW vs a LW its all missiles OB attacks and running. first one to get the AP lead controls the game. thatís dumb as shit. so yeah once I tag you off the bat I will run forever and shoot missiles and use AA in close and you will be forever running while I run the clock. thatís bullshit.

dodging missiles means some one with the skill can keep advancing even while some one is spamming missiles. in ac4 I have ran ,missiles boats out of missiles. thatís a great thing to see some one trying to be a missiles whore and having no fear cause you know you can dodge missiles all day. if not that then cover and running a last resort. if the game does not give you options then the game strategy becomes narrowed and this games looses its appeal. thatís when you know its broken. Remember this game is about options just for design but as a result tactical options.

so fox this is what I say to your venom. tha purpose of the ban is to prevent the meta game being steared in one derection. broken set ups are dominant. remove them and you dont have more broken set ups. you assume the whole game is perfectly teared. if vega was cheap because it fired to fast for such a heavy weapon like ti does then that does not make canopus cheap just because vega is removed. canopus is fine how it is so no one is taling about that. otherwise it would have been vega and canopus. see so you assume that the game is perfectly teared when it is not. you have have a few broken set ups or parts that ruin the game, but a few bad apples does not make a bunch.

fox also your argument of the slipperly slope is a falacy any way for the above reason. just because one part is removed does not mean all should be removed or even others because the next best thing is not allways the case if the game is balenced with the exception of the before mentioned banned items.

and your idea about skillessness to the point where zero skill is required is silly. suppose two players have the same skills. lets me specific. their skills ranges through all weights and weapons set ups so they can splay with mids to lights to heavies CQC and long range. they know all the usual strats and tactics and are over all well rounded players who in fact know each others play styles and counter staticís to the point of near flawless prediction of each other. when they play together no matter what build they use on each other they matches are dead even and when one wins it is always because they were able to outthink the other guy. now suppose we through one of those broken builds into the mix. now the person who has the broken build has the overwhelming advantage because certain things are uncounterable and because the set up has advantages that no other combination can provide without the right disadvantages. suppose to go further now that some one with less skill then one of these players uses the broken build and kicks ass with it. when we analyze the situation we see that the build requires only the basic level of control and strategy and the build does the rest. that my friend is dumb
Back to top Go down
View user profile
FOXFIRE_kadrpg

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2008-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:31 pm

Regulation files are not a waste of time; they are made by From Software with a different purpose than us players. The purpose of Regulation Files are to reduce monotony (or "cheapness") to encourage player participation as well as allow them to address errors in their program that were not discovered until after release. It is the intent of From Software to take in business, primarily, and whatever mechanics that will do that in their oppinion will be the paradigm for the new regulations.

A competative player's motivation though is different; all a competitor should care about is whether the final screen displays a "WIN" or not.

Philosophically, I have a drastic difference in play between competition (ranked servers) and friendly games. In competition, I don't care how ugly or monotonous the outcome is, so long as it consistantly favors a player best practiced at the game. (Translation: the outcome is not left up to chance.)

I have friendly game AC designs; my "Pirate King" is an aylia leg based AC with the 63AN head (because that head looks like a pirate hat to me.) I recall distinctly that I put the little birdie stabilizer on the head (to represent a parrot), but couldn't for the life of me tell you what the weapons are on it. I suspect my philosophy is mirrored by the Japanese; the players that show up at Impervious's games are not there for strict competition, just to enjoy a game.

Exo-gen, I think you are mistaken to believe there is a "tier-less" layer underneith the Saline and Wheeling shouldermounts, because any availability for customization will have the design that best suits the player who can put it to the best use.

Your very last arguement, Exo-gen, is a great example to illustrate our two veiws. I do not find that dumb; that a particular design in the hands of clone players would prove a garenteed victory. When it comes to competition, the only thing I'd remove is something that makes the game a toss up, no matter how ugly, how "cheap", how repetative, how seemingly uninspired it seems otherwise. I do not begrudge your desire for a competition that employs a variety of designs and approaches.

Ordinarily, as a side arguement (and an excuse to play more Armored Core) I'd like to play a few games against notoriously "cheesy builds" in an effort to debunk some of their power, but I no longer think I can do that; I have played a few matches with DarkRedWolf, whom I firmly believe has the best internet connection to myself, and have experianced multiple teleports in our matches. In short, I don't really think I can have a match with for Answer that isn't given to the whim of the Lag Monster, which explains my absense from the game as of late. I'll return soon enough to casual play, but I am certainly debating my role in competition.

Lastly, so as to make certain I do not appear completely oblivious to for Answer's mechanics, I agree, whole heartedly that Saline, and to a lesser extent, other missles are absolutely devistating compared to other weapons. Where I on the From Software crew, I would want very much to tone down Saline, probably reduce the Wheeling shouldermounts to half of their volley count, and see what I could do about strengthing the firepower of non-sniper direct fire weapons. Saline especially, since it's tracking exceeds all other missles; A stationary AC at 400m from myself will be hit with about a third of all scatter missles when launched, but Saline will connect with all rounds, has the heightened speed of Scatter missles, and a conveinant reload time for it's remarkably low equip costs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Exo-Gen
Admin
avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2008-03-03

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:48 am

yeah saline is bullshit but they reduced it in this new reg it is not as bad as before. I still think it could use a reload time increase because it is still highly spammable and reduce the missiles flight time once it explodes yet again so that if it misses you the first time it stops. before it would follow you relentlessly for days now after like two QB's if it even curves around it is gone. but firing two of them you can still envelop some one in a cloud of them. this of course is counterable but I think other missiles are not that strong so I would reduce it only in those two ways to prevent spamming. thatís all.

another point fox. I could turn the tables on you about your idea that bans steer the game in the direction of the one who implements the bans. indeed that could be the case but it is a fallacy to suggest that it necessarily is the case. I could just as easily say that those that want to keep "cheep" weapons or set ups in the game want to do so because they want to steer the game in "their" direction. example. salineís force you to fun which is a perfect deterrent against anyone who wants to go close quarters. so those that hate close quarters could use saline to prevent that situation from every occurring as long as they use the missiles sparingly. AA is another example that even better illustrates that same point. anything that disallows for balance is flawed. you need the right trade off's.

I am for a balanced non tear game that encourages specialization and variety, which by default encourages the skill of the player to overcome all and not be a "rock paper sicors" match between various counter built set up's.

and yeah the lag is a problem but It hink with this new reg they are adressing alot of the glitches.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Exo-Gen
Admin
avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2008-03-03

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Fri Apr 18, 2008 9:47 am

there is one thing about banning that I dont like. thats that banning things makes you a weaker player. the question is how should the game be played and what type of games does it favor. I feel that everything should have its place. snipers should be long rangers because thats what snipers are by definition. a machine gunner is a close ranger because that is what MG's are good at. everything has its place. balence. some ppl want tear. it comes down to what you want.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
FOXFIRE_kadrpg

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2008-03-16

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:54 pm

A very good turnaround, Exo-Gen, by mentioning that those that strongly oppose bans might indeed do so because the current situation favors their play style. Although, I regard the creators of any game as infallable in their design, unless they admit otherwise, and thus consider it the moral high ground to oppose any addition of "house rules".

I agree very strongly with your sentiment that banning reduces skill; I still hold the optimism that wrestling with "over-powered" designs yeilds a greater result in your capability as you struggle to understand it and devise tactics against it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Exo-Gen
Admin
avatar

Posts : 45
Join date : 2008-03-03

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:09 am

Well you cant assume that they are infallible. The very fact that regulation files exist is testament to the fact that game designers miss things. Not just programming errors like the kind we have in for answer in regard to the perceived lag but in correcting imbalances in the game that hinder competitive play. See there is something I think you and others who share you view are not seeing.

The problem with imbalanced parts and thus designs is simple. Parts that need to be fixed are only broken because they violate balancing laws of the game. in our argument before about the rail gun I mentioned that it was a contradictory weapon. Contradictory because it violated inherent balancing laws of the game, laws that make the game fair in other words. The rail gun fires the fastest bullet and has the longest lock in the game. Since those two factors must always be balanced with sighting ability, in other words melee or in past game lock box size, you would expect it to have the lowest melee in the game if balanced is to be achieved. YET, it does not. It makes no difference that it is heavy, and EN draining or what other negatives it might poses. Those factors, hindering as they may be to your ability to wield the weapon, none the less do not detract from the fact that the basic balancing laws of the game have bee violated resulting in people exploiting that weapon. As I mentioned before. People use the rail gun in close because we all know it is a bitch to dodge, and it should not be because we should not have to worry about it locking on in close. Now people will say that there are ways around it. I am aware of this. My point though is that you should not have to develop a strategy around something that is broken, cause it should not exist. And fox you have said to me before that sniper weapons should not be forbidden from being used in close. But wait if you think its fair for them to be used in close with all their accuracy and speedy bullets, then I want to have machine guns that reach the same distance as sniper rifles and do the same damage at those ranges, with some difficulty of cause equal to the ease of using rail guns in close, I mean if we are going to be fair. I hope you are starting to see the absurdity.

Now a word about tier. If something in a game is unbalanced it does not encourage variety because everything is not equal. If a weapon is more effective overall then another then why should I not pick that weapon every time? Why even bother playing with something I like or something that has proper advantages and disadvantages? I should just pick the best set up. But donít you see that if the game is balanced properly then there can be no unbalanced set up. Everything will have a counter and the right counter. There will be no way to exploit the game. People will of course still be exploited but it will be do to their lack of knowledge about the game both in terms of the abilities of the parts and weapons and tactics as well. In other words players who invent time in practicing will be rewarded the more they learn and the better their skills become. They wont have to worry about some noob who has played the game for ten minutes applying his first person shooter skills to at least be able to look at you just so he can launch salines all day and murder a 10 year veteran of the series. The noob will be forced to learn. And if he has a defeatist attitude and cant take loosing then he should play with other inexperience players or go home. So donít you see fox, balance is a good thing.
the least bit because the expert will know all the counters and the counters to the counters so that only other experts will be a threat to him or her.

Before I go on an further fox I want to understand the terms you are using. What do you mean exactly when you use the word ďtierĒ?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lazy_Shikamaru(Ryu_Vision

avatar

Posts : 25
Join date : 2008-03-04
Age : 33
Location : Manly, Iowa

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:40 am

sweet........ so what being bans and what not being bannned... just wondering is all

_________________
Beware of Zombies..... some are harder to kill.... while other just wanna eat your brains.....
Back to top Go down
View user profile
impervious
Admin
avatar

Posts : 52
Join date : 2008-03-03
Age : 39
Location : Chicago

PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:16 pm

there may be a couple things banned when we play in 1.1 on FA. that is all, but pretty much nothing is being banned

_________________
"love can't save you only my new powers can do that" Episode III, Darth Vader may have nipples of steel but he tends to give me the dumb bumps in his earlier carrer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://armoredcore4teams.bigforumpro.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Ban "Banning".   

Back to top Go down
 
Ban "Banning".
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Armored core 4 teams :: General Topics-
Jump to: