Author Topic: Centripetal Force - SIGNUPS CLOSED (Read 4988 times)

playzooki · « **Reply #20 on:** April 16, 2014, 11:01:05 AM »

drums are basically VS

cephalopod · « **Reply #21 on:** April 16, 2014, 11:37:26 AM »

Thinking about implementing a minimum weapon motor so as to restrict back jugglers and wall-of-weapon FS, I imagine the minimum will be a Perm 45, so I'd be allowing only perms, dual perms, eteks and 2/4/6 mags as weapon motors. Geared Betas are of course allowed on hammers.

playzooki · « **Reply #22 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:08:25 PM »

Quote from: Craaig on April 16, 2014, 11:37:26 AM

Thinking about implementing a minimum weapon motor so as to restrict back jugglers and wall-of-weapon FS, I imagine the minimum will be a Perm 45, so I'd be allowing only perms, dual perms, eteks and 2/4/6 mags as weapon motors. Geared Betas are of course allowed on hammers.

i personally disagree with this, what if someone enters a crazy 6 spinner hs that uses mags or piglets or something

martymidget · « **Reply #23 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:23:34 PM »

and a 6 piglet HS is going to be oh so destructive.

cephalopod · « **Reply #24 on:** April 16, 2014, 04:25:43 PM »

Good luck doing that while staying realistic :P
I think I'll keep those guidelines for now - they're in the rules now :)

TommyProductionsInc · « **Reply #25 on:** April 16, 2014, 09:13:57 PM »

Okay, I've decided to grow some balls and enter this tournament, with my MOST powerful robot yet.

madman3 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 17, 2014, 03:18:30 AM »

The problem with having a certain heavier weapon motor for jugglers is that it's rarely ever effective, I don't think restricting the minimum motor options is a good idea.

martymidget · « **Reply #27 on:** April 17, 2014, 05:04:04 AM »

Quote from: madman3 on April 17, 2014, 03:18:30 AM

The problem with having a certain heavier weapon motor for jugglers is that it's rarely ever effective, I don't think restricting the minimum motor options is a good idea.

Jugglers aren't going to be effective in this. Period.

cephalopod · « **Reply #28 on:** April 17, 2014, 05:06:31 AM »

Quote from: madman3 on April 17, 2014, 03:18:30 AM

The problem with having a certain heavier weapon motor for jugglers is that it's rarely ever effective, I don't think restricting the minimum motor options is a good idea.

Well don't enter a juggler? :P My point of view, and this issue was raised to me by Marty, is that if it's not done, somebody will enter an FS which essentially is a rammer or something because slow motors, and win everything by, very boringly, deweaponing everything else.
In my opinion it's either the restriction or remove Jugglers and Face Spinners, unless I can be convinced otherwise :P

madman3 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 17, 2014, 06:16:28 AM »

Ah well, I've managed to get a juggler that fits these rules now XD

playzooki · « **Reply #30 on:** April 17, 2014, 03:31:07 PM »

i had an idea that may be slightly original for this, but the new rule ruins it.
it wasnt a fs or juggler.

Naryar · « **Reply #31 on:** April 18, 2014, 12:57:34 PM »

definitely entering, seems good. Good to see FSS are out of this as well.

also lol @ frenzy hammer, more like a walking target.

Though now I need an intredasting idea.... ohwait HS/VS or VS/FS hybrid :O

cephalopod · « **Reply #32 on:** April 18, 2014, 05:10:51 PM »

Quote from: Naryar on April 18, 2014, 12:57:34 PM

Good to see FSS are out of this as well.

Actually I never clarified flails. I might disallow them just to make things... less flaily.

cephalopod · « **Reply #33 on:** April 19, 2014, 07:09:10 AM »

Would people rather the bracket be 16 with a loser's bracket or 32 with no loser's bracket?
Thinking of expanding to 32, but still using 4 way melee's, so the first round would be qualifiers and the top 2 in each battle go through to the main 16-spot tournament

TommyProductionsInc · « **Reply #34 on:** April 19, 2014, 04:37:48 PM »

Quote from: Craaig on April 19, 2014, 07:09:10 AM

Would people rather the bracket be 16 with a loser's bracket or 32 with no loser's bracket?
Thinking of expanding to 32, but still using 4 way melee's, so the first round would be qualifiers and the top 2 in each battle go through to the main 16-spot tournament

I would prefer a loser's bracket, personally.
I'd get to see my robot in action at least twice, as well as any other cool competitors.

Shield · « **Reply #35 on:** April 19, 2014, 08:04:27 PM »

Quote from: TommyProductionsInc on April 19, 2014, 04:37:48 PM

Quote from: Craaig on April 19, 2014, 07:09:10 AM
Would people rather the bracket be 16 with a loser's bracket or 32 with no loser's bracket?
Thinking of expanding to 32, but still using 4 way melee's, so the first round would be qualifiers and the top 2 in each battle go through to the main 16-spot tournament
I would prefer a loser's bracket, personally.
I'd get to see my robot in action at least twice, as well as any other cool competitors.

^this

Naryar · « **Reply #36 on:** April 20, 2014, 02:49:04 PM »

*storms into thread*

CRAAIG-CHAN ? MAY I ASK WHY DID YOU BAN PIGLETS WHEN THESE ARE A PERFECTLY VALID MANNER TO BUILD SPINNERS ?

cephalopod · « **Reply #37 on:** April 20, 2014, 03:04:55 PM »

Because people will just make wall-of-weapon FS.

I think I will allow anything below Perm 80 as long as there is no more than 2 used on 1 spinner type. This makes more sense and will allow for cool hybrids.

Naryar · « **Reply #38 on:** April 20, 2014, 03:10:57 PM »

So ? Wall of weapon FS can be beaten by a VS quite easily. Or a solid enough HS.

But thanks for changing the rule. I knew my bot was awesome enough to sway you :D

cephalopod · « **Reply #39 on:** April 20, 2014, 05:59:34 PM »

I think the current ruleset may be the final one. Get building, signups will open sometime in the next few days!