<table border="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%" id="table1"> <tr> <td>

</td> </tr> <tr> <td> <table border="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%" id="table2"> <tr> <td>

Report: 23 April 2005 </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Judges and Judging</td> </tr> <tr> <td>I really hate the idea of covering this again, but I think I need to. If you lose a battle, are not happy about it (which most aren't) and feel you should have won (which most do) - there are ways to handle it and ways not to handle it. You don't handle it by saying bullsh*t in IRC, perpetuating some conspiracy theory and attempting to run a poll in the channel to see if people agree with you. That is, by far, the worst way you could go about it. Instead, come to me with your argument and I will look into it. I am not unwilling to consider the possibility that a Judge made a mistake. A lot of the time I can trace the path back to bad information, i.e. I wasn't clear in the Judge process for a specific point that was rated; a Judge is taking direction from an individual, who is not on the staff, in a position of authority over the Judge outside of the ACC etc. Sometimes, it's just a brain-fart on the part of the Judge. More often than not, I'd be willing to say 98% of the time - you just lost, so be careful in your argument. After I have had a look at it, I'll deal with it - either overturn it or leave the rating as it stands. In the past 3-4 months, the number of battles overturned vs number of battles fought don't compare close enough to even gain a percentage, hence, battles are rarely overturned - so, please don't assume that yours will be, it is utterly dependant on the circumstances.</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ladders</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The CHL is in the 3rd round. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>There is a new Pilot Ladder open for signups and it will be run by DA Halcyon. It will see the victory of the ACC's first "Ace" - the pilots answer to the Champion title. We're still waiting for a few more bodies before it kicks off... so, sign up you pansies! :P</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Compendium Updates</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vital Statistics</td> </tr> <tr> <td>After some skimming through the Forum, it has come to my attention that stats (STR, CON, DEX etc.) need to be clarified, rather, it would be a good idea to clarify them a bit more. So, the staff has undergone an extensive renovation of the ACC stat system. Currently, everything is broken down into ranges, i.e. 3-8; 9-14 etc which folks are having a difficult time interpreting. So, we are taking each stat and breaking them into individual point explanations for each number assignable - 3 to 26 (you can't have less than three for vital stats). Furthermore, there will be bits of explanation as to how a stat compares with its alter-stat, for instance: a combatant who has a 9 STR = "You engage in little to moderate physical activity with the goal of getting stronger, which is noticed by those whose CON is below your STR. Opponents whose CON is within 1 of your STR may still be damaged by your ability. Those with an 8 CON and below are fairly easy targets; 11 CON might be tough; those who are 12+ CON will remain resilient to your physical attacks." These explanations will rely a lot on the language. Words like "may" and "will" have been purposely added to define an ability, it wasn't just how they were written. In the example above, "may still be damaged by your ability" means that it probably won't happen all of the time, it "may" happen. Similarly, "will remain resilient to your physical attacks" means that there is no question, they "will" remain resilient (where the word resilient doesn't mean eternally impervious anyway :P). This may seem confusing, but you'll have to see them all compared first - and there is no way in Hades that we will be writing whole page definitions, scenarios and explanations for each single stat point - that would be stupid - so these will be as concise as possible without wasting our time. </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rules Section</td> </tr> <tr> <td>I dunno, I thought they are fairly clear to those who actually read them, but I guess not - after all, the Rules section was supposed to be a 'guideline' of the major stuff, with specifics being covered in the body of the compendium. So the rules will be getting an overhaul too. I must admit, in the last update, I didn't pay a lot of attention to rewriting the rules, I only 'added' what needed to be added and removed the needless stuff - but I never thought there was a problem. Unfortunately, most of the issues are raised by combatants who 'skim' the compendium without actually reading it - that's fine; but most of the stuff you claim to 'not find' is actually there. Nevertheless, your concerns will be addressed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>d20/ACC Factoid</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Instead of getting back into the argument about the ACC being an RPG or not, I wanted to address the overall topic real quick. First, I didn't make the ACC - and never claimed to. Second, the core of the ACC setup has been the same since day 1 - without change, despite what has been adjusted since. Third - we don't have the juice to get it any closer to a d20 system that the outskirts that it teeters on now. Even after re-birth, there is very little that will change within the 'core' structures of the ACC. All that you will see (in the ACC) is probably different options, more toys, different points and maybe some bonuses and things - but the original intent of the ACC will remain the same. Yes, there may be a new CS that both the ACC and the DB/RPG system will run off of... but not all of the CS info will translate into the ACC, likewise, some of the ACC stuff won't translate into your RPG experiences. So, it would be great if the lot of you would stop your incessant blithering about "my" clandestine design to subvert d20 systems - Factoid: The ACC is the way it is and there are things that I cannot change, not because I don't want to but because it physically can't be done - so, have a Twinkie^®and get off my back :)</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Weekend</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Yea, it's here... anyone wanna mow my lawn?</td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </td> </tr> <tr> <td>

</td> </tr> </table>