Forum:Series 7 Audited Series Framework

There are a few things I think we need to agree on before beginning the process of choosing bin candidates and seeds.

New Judge
There's now a place available for a third judge, I gave Matt first choice, but he hasn't replied to the offer and is now going to be absent for a while. I want to be fair about this, but I don't really know how, so if you would like to put yourself forward to have a stab at it, or you want to nominate someone else, or CrashBash and RA2 (the remaining judges) want to choose your own stand-in, then please enter the discussion below.

Discussion

 * I would put myself forward, but I can't see myself voting in the heats if it is structured head to head wise, and I doubt I'd get many supports, as I'm not a very good contributor. :P So, I'd probably nominate RA2. RelicRaider (talk) 16:57, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * RA2 is already a judge. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:24, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad, well then, I'd nominate Toast, as he has been here a long time, and his votes have been very compelling, e.g. Typhoon 2 vs Tough As Nails. RelicRaider (talk) 17:27, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't expect to get this one bit, but it's always worth a shot. I make sure I add my vote ASAP, and I have been known to make a point that others have missed (Such as T'n'S and Hodaf being similar, but only Hodaf being able to self-right) to which people have agreed with, so I know what I am speaking about. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:06, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not going to get to be a judge but I'll put my vote here anyway. Sam (BAZINGA) 17:20, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm...personally, I'd vote to nominate either Jim or Toast. Both pretty frequent voters and they make compelling arguments too. Please don't ask me to pick one of the two, though. CrashBash (talk) 17:24, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Much as it would be noble of me to offer the role to Jimlaad, I am quite keen on becoming a Judge. I should have Internet back by the time the competition starts. Toast  Ultimatum  18:15, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be noble. If you want it, let others decide. As I said, I didn't expect to get it, and am happy to get support from someone. Just see how peoples votes go. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 18:23, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Heat Structure
I'm making it plain now that I plan to have 16 heats with 8 robots in each, but there has been a split decision really on how to structure the heats for Round 1, either 4 way melees or 4 head to heads. I am strongly in favour of head to heads, as many of us have tried melees before, and the discussions and justifications were just too ambiguous, so it rather defeated the object. However, I want to be fair, so I'll leave it to a vote. Sign your username below, but if you want melees, I expect a good justification alongside your signature.
 * I have a question, then...if people are so against doing melees, why are we even doing Audited Series 7 in the first place? Just saying. CrashBash (talk) 17:58, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand peoples problems with melees (Who'da thunk Storm 2 and Rhino would have qualified, leaving Mayhem and Supernova out), but that was how Series 7 happened. I have never voted on a 4 way melee and would love to have a go, even if I decide afterwards it was bad. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 18:03, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

For Head to heads

 * Datovidny (talk) 16:25, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sam (BAZINGA) 16:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC) Head to heads are more fun
 * R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk ) 17:51, October 18, 2013 (UTC) While it may be breaking form, I really dislike doing melees in fantasy tournaments because there are too many variables to make for a proper debate, really you could argue for any robot going out depending on who targets whom.
 * Toast Ultimatum  18:15, October 18, 2013 (UTC) I absolutely do not want to do 4-way matches, that would pretty much kill half the tournament for me.
 * Head to head matches are easier to judge than melees, as when judging melees we have to consider who would attack who first. 4 way melees would be particularly to predict. Drop Zone mk2 (talk) 18:27, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Against head to heads

 * CrashBash (talk) 16:52, October 18, 2013 (UTC) (It'd stay more true to the actual series, which we've done for all three others and it allows for better discussion. Besides, better sooner than later we sort out how to do these)
 * RelicRaider (talk) 16:53, October 18, 2013 (UTC) (It wouldn't be right in my mind to do it structurally different to the real series 7.)
 * J im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:06, October 18, 2013 (UTC) If we start or end the discussion with So-and-so1 and So-and-so2 qualify, it could work.
 * I don't really understand. If you mean what we'll say at the end, that's not the problem. Datovidny (talk) 17:51, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Well if we write our thoughts on what will happen, before we add our signature, put the bit about who will qualify, so it is easy to see who we voted for. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:53, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Side competitions
I plan to have side events running with each heat, like in the TV show, but I also thought we could have an All-Stars and World Championship at the end of the series too, let's face it an Annihilator wouldn't really work. If the side events include qualifiers, the World Championship should be okay, and if the numbers don't quite work for the All-Stars, then we can omit that one, there's no point having one like Extreme 2 for finalists. Write below on your thoughts.

Discussion

 * Obviously it'd be nice if we could incorporate my People's Challenge idea, but as an alternative (and to stick to a S7 only basis), Toast's Challenge Belt idea intrigues me. CrashBash (talk) 16:54, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * A sweepstake Tag-Team Terror, where each user has a tag-team that competes in a tournament. They can be any heavyweight competitors from any time, but one robot must have never qualified from a heat. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:06, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the teams in my sandbox? Sam (BAZINGA) 17:13, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole point is that each user picks their own team for a sweepstake. With yours, the final will be Team Air Force vs Team Brute Force, almost no question. I would personally pick a different team. Even if we had a list of, say 16 robots from each category for people to choose from. Anyway, it's just an idea I have voiced before, and am raising again. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:23, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the idea may seem fun and all, but adding the competitive sweepstake element clouds people's judgement. Like, I think Atomic May have been able to beat Terrorhurtz, but Terrorhurtz was my sweepstake robot, so naturally I took more of a liking to it, and therefore voted for it. Others also voted for Terrorhurtz, but you know the difference one vote can change. I think that quite a lot of votes were swayed by having said robot as their sweepstake. And don't worry, I'm guilty of the same thing. The problem with having a list of sixteen to choose from, is say there are eight or so decent to really good robots. Those eight will be used up by the first four users. And the last person won't get to choose, as there will be only two left. And if we went with one semi finalist + one robot that didn't make the semis. Then teams like Razer + DrillZilla will emerge. RelicRaider (talk) 17:36, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Scrap this. It would need a lot of thought to regulate it better. I can think of ways to do it, but just for the sake of the small one battle special events it's not worth it. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * As the Tag-Team is a no go, I just think letting each user pick any robots to compete in any style of battle would work and create some fun battles. For Example we could have: Single battle Tag-Teams, Vengeances, Mayhems/Melees, Featherweight fights or just a blood bath battle between a destructive robot and a weakly armoured one like Typhoon 2 vs Shadow of Napalm. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I'd have to say no to the blood bath battle, as it won't be any fun to vote on unless we write. Blow for blow account, and most people don't have the time, nor want to. Although, Napalm has never lost to a spinner, so it could get interesting that way. RelicRaider (talk) 18:01, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, good point. Still, the free-for-all choice, one battle each would appeal to people. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 18:04, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * Sue me for supporting my own idea don't, but I think the Challenge Belt idea would be a simple contest to run. The World Championship would probably be the same as it was before. Toast  Ultimatum  18:15, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with this is that it starts with Tornado, which is almost unbeatable, and seemingly only Storm 2 could take its title away, leaving the Challenge Belt even more unobtainable. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 18:25, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * No one said anything about it starting with Tornado. We could start with any robot. Heck, it'd be a good excuse to use some of the lesser-sung heroes of the RW world. CrashBash (talk) 18:26, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

New Regulations
Should the new regulations be removed. This would mean that robots without active weapons could enter (Stinger, Mr Nasty, also leaving Storm 2 as the Extreme 2 version, so it is a little less invincible). Max PSI and rpm removed too, meaning Razer could compete and the interchangeable rules changed, so Tornado has its anti-Razer frame. Finally, let Kim Davies drive Panic Attack.


 * Of course, I forgot all about this! Of course this is here too, I will put it forward that there will be no "No weapons" rule and the max PSI rule will be cut too. However, I wouldn't let Kim Davies drive Panic Attack, and I'm not 100% on letting Razer compete. Datovidny (talk) 17:54, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are saying we get rid of the new weapons regulations. As I said, this would mean using the Extreme 2 Storm 2, and letting Tornado use the Anti-Razer frame, although you don't want Razer, so it wouldn't matter. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 17:59, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd personally say the S7 version was less invincible, personally. I know it was by something of a fluke that its front was destroyed in the Grand Final, but that never could have happened in the Extreme 2 version. CrashBash (talk) 18:07, October 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Using the old version of Storm II seems too speculative to me, improvements other than the lifter were made for Series 7. I don't think we have evidence that Razer tried to enter, and even if it did, I still don't want it. I don't want Dominator II or Terrorhurtz either, personally. Adding Stinger is fine, but I'll again pass on Mr Nasty, as we don't know if it tried to enter or not. Toast  Ultimatum  18:15, October 18, 2013 (UTC)