gametechmods

Robot Arena Matches => Contests => Topic started by: ACAMS on April 01, 2012, 12:43:50 PM

Title: BOTM May 2012
Post by: ACAMS on April 01, 2012, 12:43:50 PM

This month will be Stock BW (125.1kg to 175kg)

 
RULES:

Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Fracture on April 01, 2012, 12:46:53 PM
  • excluding the 140cm square extender
Why you gotta do this to us ACAMS

I'm hoping for NFX's memory to fail him so he forgets to enter. (https://gametechmods.com/forums/Smileys/gtm/evilsmile.gif)
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: NFX on April 01, 2012, 12:48:17 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.

Although history says I cannot get 3 BOTM's in a row. But I must do this to infuriate JoeBlo.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Philippa on April 01, 2012, 12:51:18 PM
BW? No thanks.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Fracture on April 01, 2012, 12:59:24 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

/!\ END 140CM SQUARE EXTENDER DISCRIMINATION TODAY /!\
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 01, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

/!\ END 140CM SQUARE EXTENDER DISCRIMINATION TODAY /!\

Yes, but the SnapperII sucks.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Fracture on April 01, 2012, 04:08:48 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

/!\ END 140CM SQUARE EXTENDER DISCRIMINATION TODAY /!\

Yes, but the SnapperII sucks.
That it surely does not.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Naryar on April 01, 2012, 06:11:02 PM
yeah the 140cm is teh ghey

Aaaaanyways, back on topic... BW. Boring. Unless I find some interesting design, I am out of this one.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 01, 2012, 09:38:13 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

/!\ END 140CM SQUARE EXTENDER DISCRIMINATION TODAY /!\

Yes, but the SnapperII sucks.
That it surely does not.

Let me reiterate... Stock sucks.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Clickbeetle on April 01, 2012, 11:58:39 PM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

Actually no.  For the first couple years that I was on the official Atari forums, the Snapper II was considered a cheat part.  Even Emergency wedges and other AI parts were considered cheating back in the day.
 
I don't know how exactly, but over time the Snapper II became gradually more accepted until it became standard on just about everything.
 
I expect the acceptance of the 140cm square extender will also be a gradual process.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Jonzu95 on April 02, 2012, 12:06:17 AM
Stock BW?

Yaay. :gawe:
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: ty4er on April 02, 2012, 03:12:38 AM
here you go tx, beetleweight :P
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: TeamXtreemer on April 02, 2012, 05:58:13 AM
y u no dsl


But cool, I'll try make something.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: ACAMS on April 05, 2012, 06:47:48 AM
Because it is unbalanced and ghey. =P Although c3:++ used it pretty well, I thought.
We accepted the SnapperII with loving arms...

Actually no.  For the first couple years that I was on the official Atari forums, the Snapper II was considered a cheat part.  Even Emergency wedges and other AI parts were considered cheating back in the day.
 
I don't know how exactly, but over time the Snapper II became gradually more accepted until it became standard on just about everything.
 
I expect the acceptance of the 140cm square extender will also be a gradual process.

I doubt the extender will ever be accepted because of it's weight.

The Snapper II was accepted because it was so weak.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: NFX on April 05, 2012, 06:59:59 AM
But the SnapperII was never used for its original intention. It was supposed to be a burst motor, but people instead used it to create super-compact Snapper-loaded designs. The 140cm extender might be broken because of its weight, but you pay the price in terms of fragility. It's such a big target, and one decent hit will easily take it off.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: ACAMS on April 05, 2012, 08:49:07 AM
It will NEVER, EVER be allowed in BOTM as long as it only weighs 5kg.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Trovaner on April 05, 2012, 02:25:48 PM
But the SnapperII was never used for its original intention. It was supposed to be a burst motor, but people instead used it to create super-compact Snapper-loaded designs. The 140cm extender might be broken because of its weight, but you pay the price in terms of fragility. It's such a big target, and one decent hit will easily take it off.
Actually the SnapperII wasn't being used for stacking purposes until way after it was accepted. I have a feeling that if it had been, it wouldn't have been accepted. One "decent" hit is also much harder to do on a well-built bot than you are giving it credit for. Humans and AI have a hard time aiming for something that thin and it would never be used for widening except when making trappers (which would be screwed either way if you managed to get on its side). As far as random chance goes, most builders could find a use for the weight loss to reduce the chance of receiving significant damage. It also would usually take more than one hit to the extender for it to break off (since it is impossible to break something off with only one weapon hitting it (it requires at least two weapons or two hits from a single weapon)). Also to take it one step further, here is some data that I took for HWs in multiple packs:
Code: [Select]
Pack:    AverageDamge | MaxDamage | Damage>=100
BBEANS AI:       59.3 |   669.4   | 17.6%
ReStocked V0.1b: 45.8 |   478.5   | 9.9%
Pys AI:          52.5 |   597.3   | 13.2%
Starcore V4a:    53.6 |   680.0   | 14.7%
Comprehensive:   54.1 |   680.0   | 14.7%

AI vs AI with no bot participating more than twice.
Excludes the trinity bot (Starcore V4a would have gotten 53.9 | 1554.4 | 14.8% and the Comprehensive would have gotten 54.2 | 1554.4 | 14.7%).
Doesn't include anything less than 10.
The test was conducted by telling the game to save all damages to a text file. By having the game do it, I got 100% accurate results and stacked weapons would be grouped together whenever they hit at once.
So just to be clear, only about 3 of every 20 attacks ever exceed 100. This means that most 100HP with 15 fracture components take 3 hits to break off. Decent no, lucky yes.

I agree with ACAMS that the 5kg 140cm extender is far too unbalanced. Every time that I have used it, I always ended up using two of them (which is 18kg less than if I had used 20cm round extenders instead). If I didn't have the weight to add protection, e.g. two blades (20kg), then I could easily use two 20cm extenders with razors instead (18kg). Also, doing it this way gave me the exact same HP as using purely 20cm extenders (if I had the additional 2kg than I would have had 600HP more) but with the added benefit of delivering damage with the razors. I should also note that though I'm referencing 20cm extenders as the alternative, the rule of 7 gets in the way of actually being this efficient. Changing gears, it is also important to understand how you use them. They are long enough to put snowplows on them with minimal effort making them excellent for trappers (again saving 18kg that could be used elsewhere). Since they are often longer than our chassis, they can take advantage of APs that would otherwise be too far back and, if done right, the extender is covered up by the chassis. If you used a SnapperII than each resulting AP costs 4.5kg (admittedly this is due to the SnapperII being unbalanced when using it for stacking purposes) and is for the most part protected by the chassis (so comparatively speaking, it is .5 kg less than using a baseplate anchor (chassis space and the eFFe glitch aside)). If you wanted to use it for height purposes or wedges then you could still protect the extender as previously mentioned or use less protection to keep it light (hammer). If you think about it, all bot types would benefit from using a 140 extender but that is because they are far less balanced than their alternatives. Any bot not using them would be at a disadvantage to a similar bot that is. If they were balanced, their impact on bot efficiency would be much more subtle.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Fracture on April 05, 2012, 04:05:14 PM
So legalizing the SnapperII was a mistake? It's 9 kg lighter than the Snapper2 and has double the potential of stacking otherwise space-wasting components. I won't argue that the 140cm isn't balanced, but it sure as heck isn't any more so than the SnapperII.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Trovaner on April 05, 2012, 05:34:46 PM
The thing is, the SnapperII wasn't accepted because of its ability to stack. It was accepted because, though it weighed less, it required more chassis weight and didn't have enough power to do much more than hold a wedge. It has since been abused to the point of being unbalanced. The same is starting to be said for the axle mount but I doubt it will go so far. The extender starts out unbalanced and dominates all other options. With time it can only get worse. The SnapperII is not without its drawbacks which inevitably make you consider other options. I personally prefer to use a Snapper 2 but other options include the axle mount, servos, pistons, or even baseplate anchors. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages but they come out pretty even IMO. More to point, there are no plausible alternatives to the 140cm extender.

If people want to continue discussing this, please do it here (https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4223.135.html) because we are drifting off topic.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Fracture on April 05, 2012, 09:05:16 PM
If people want to continue discussing this, please do it here (https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,4223.135.html) because we are drifting off topic.
Right, I was just thinking it would be okay here or in the BOTM Discussion thread since the 140cm extender is allowed everywhere else.

Last thing I'm gonna say, the 140cm has been allowed for quite some time now, and honestly nothing even close to game-breaking has happened, so I don't see how it could give someone a big advantage in BOTM. It's used in optimal situations only, like the SnapperII, when otherwise it's really just too long or doesn't give enough attachment points. If you really want to get detailed the only thing it really replaces is a 120cm + 20cm/100cm + 40cm/etc..

At least some on-topic stuff: Someone should enter a bot with 60cm + 80cm square extenders attached to each other to troll ACAMS into thinking it's a 140cm.  :trollface
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Jonzu95 on April 26, 2012, 01:03:24 AM
Goddamnit I need to build my entry ASAP D:
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: ACAMS on April 29, 2012, 05:32:09 PM
I was busy.......

This pic took, the last one to clean, but the one I took of all the remains of the other fish I had just cleaned under that one didn't take for some reason and I have already cleaned up the mess.



(https://gametechmods.com/Pics/catfish001.JPG)
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 29, 2012, 07:07:15 PM
I was busy.......

This pic took, the last one to clean, but the one I took of all the remains of the other fish I had just cleaned under that one didn't take for some reason and I have already cleaned up the mess.



(https://gametechmods.com/Pics/catfish001.JPG)


Very nice catfish, ACAMS, but why is this in the BotM thread?

Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: GarvinTheGreat on April 29, 2012, 07:09:28 PM
Did you go noodling for it?
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 29, 2012, 07:10:39 PM
Did you go noodling for it?

I would assume so... That's a huge catfish.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: NFX on April 29, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Fish before forum.

Good catch, though. Though I know literally nothing about fishing. Truck could use a clean, though.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Mr. AS on April 29, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
i caught a approx 5 inch trout today

mine is smaller than acams' xd
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: GarvinTheGreat on April 29, 2012, 07:13:54 PM
Fish before forum.

Good catch, though. Though I know literally nothing about fishing. Truck could use a clean, though.

You know nothing of fishing!??!

HOW DARE YOU!!!
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 29, 2012, 07:16:12 PM
Fish before forum.

Good catch, though. Though I know literally nothing about fishing. Truck could use a clean, though.

Maybe the trucks in Britain are that small, but that is a side-by-side ATV. Pretty much a quad, but with 2 seats and a utility bed.


i caught a approx 5 inch trout today

Brown trout? :laughing
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: GarvinTheGreat on April 29, 2012, 07:17:08 PM
He is scottish
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: HurricaneAndrew on April 29, 2012, 07:19:27 PM
He is scottish

Yes, I forgot. Well, then European trucks may be that small.
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: Mr. AS on April 29, 2012, 07:22:01 PM
i caught a approx 5 inch trout today

Brown trout? :laughing
yesh

the river that i fished in is not too deep so there arent a ton of huge bass there
Title: Re: BOTM May 2012
Post by: SKBT on April 29, 2012, 07:37:02 PM
My school has 2 european cushman pickup "trucks" they would fit in the back of a 350 super duty. They aren't much bigger than a side by side.