gametechmods
Robot Arena => Discussion => Topic started by: Maka on February 13, 2015, 03:57:37 AM
-
So earlier I was reading the DSL-S rules and took it upon myself to rewrite them not only to look better, but to be better organized (more concise with less repetitions).
As I got into writing it though, I came across a few issues I had with it. I started adding rules and making assumptions based on what I thought ought to be in a standardized set of rules for realistic robot building (not just for DSL either - it's not like we only build realistic robots in DSL).
So I figured I'd post my interpretation here. I'd like to see what everyone thinks about it, and if anyone thinks any of the current rules should be looked at based on my suggestions.
Realistic standard robots are intended to emulate robots that are capable of physically being built (regardless of the time or resources required to do so). Realistic standard robots must adhere to the following guidelines or any unstated restrictions that creating a physically constructible robot implies.
A realistic standard robot...
- must have a control board and at least one battery.
- cannot be built to exploit Havok glitches (excluding chicken drills) or any other kind of game-breaking glitches. These include, but are not limited to:
- trinity
- nasty pickle
- rupting
- Trovaner chassis
- must be built entirely in the botlab under legitimate conditions. Prohibited building methods include, but are not limited to:
- bot-file editing (BFE)
- advanced attachment method (AAM)
- hax mode
- must be built from the chassis up. All components must be physically connect to the chassis by way of extenders and end in some chassis mount (motor, baseplate mount, or otherwise).
- must be entirely destructible. Use of indestructible parts (such as casters or skirt mounts) as armor is prohibited.
- must use realistic armor. A robot cannot be armored with double-strength aluminum (DSA).
A component may intersect...
- some of the chassis.
- other components that do not move relative to it.
A component may NOT intersect...
- any kind of mechanical component (any component capable of allowing movement relative to the chassis), power source, control board, or baseplate mount.
- an unrealistic portion of the chassis (ie: a disc that divides the chassis into two completely separate, physically unconnectable pieces).
- any component that can move relative to it (ie: a component mounted on another motor or baseplate anchor).
- components that are perfectly or near perfectly stacked inside of it.
If anyone wants me to elaborate on any of these rules or why I chose them, I'll gladly do so.
-
Standard Realism is something that has had it's own unspoken rules as such.
A few issues I can find
-Trov Glitch is fine - you can make thin chassis in real life.
-Doesn't have to be entirely destructible in classic DSL-S - just makes you a complete tryhard if you use caster armour/Narmour (Most tournament hosts use the Narmour-Be-Gone patch anyway)
-Nothing wrong with DSA - it's really weak in DSL so there's no point choosing it and generally banning it is odd, but okay.
-
Your thing is basically DSL-S with a few extra addons. Apart from a few little things, you got the jist of DSL-S well.
-I actually agree with the banning of trov glitch, because ultra-thin chassis parts will just break at the first impact in real life. We don't need to ban all uses of trov glitch, though, only the blatantly unrealistic ones.
-No, casters and invulnerable armor are legal in DSL-S. They are generally frowned upon and considered cheap, however, and therefore are barely even used. And you are banning casters for other uses than invulnerable armor as well.
-BFE has nothing to do with building styles. It's just a switch that tournament makers set to OFF an ON. So no. It's already banned implicitly by most people anyway.
-Banning DSA in DSL is pointless. Banning DSA in stock ? People will never accept it.
-
-I actually agree with the banning of trov glitch, because ultra-thin chassis parts will just break at the first impact in real life.
And all those unsupported Perm axles are totally not going to just fall down in real life, right? :P
-
-I actually agree with the banning of trov glitch, because ultra-thin chassis parts will just break at the first impact in real life.
And all those unsupported Perm axles are totally not going to just fall down in real life, right? :P
If this is a problem, then just change the normal Perms to the DSL3 perms, which HAVE support.
Or edit the perm's visual mesh so that it has support.
The perm is assumed to have a stabilizer already. It's just not seen in game for some reason.
-
Instead of quoting everyone I'm just going to bullet my points here...
- Trov glitch can be fine from a realistic building standpoint, I understand that. The reason I prohibited it was because of it crashing games on high settings etc. Also, what constitutes a realistic chassis thickness is just too subjective IMO.
- Perhaps being entirely destructible isn't prohibited in DSL-S, but this isn't my re-wording of DSL-S. This is what I think a standard set of rules for realistic robots ought to be. I'd probably have to re-word this one though do to the use of things like those plates which bolt on to the bottom of the chassis (the name of which is escaping me). Either way, I am not outright banning the use of indestructible parts on the chassis, just uses of such parts for armor (which I'm still not crazy about since, again, it leaves some room for subjectivity).
- I banned DSA because I didn't like the idea of an unrealistically strong armor that basically has the benefits of both light and heavy armor. The idea was to prevent people from using blatantly unbalanced armor (even if it isn't that great in DSL).
- If BFE is usually banned from tournaments, then I figured it'd make sense to have it banned in the standard ruleset. That way, the only time anyone would have to mention it is in the rare occasion that it is allowed in a tournament.
-
The methods of building are irrelevant to a bot being realistic so BFE and Hax and such should be on the otside if at all, not nestled with the other bullets. I'd add a clause about excessive spikes or teeth. Non realistic robots are built to exploit the fact that even steel-10 armor can be destroyed if it gets scratched a lot. Also, in real life, discs with the fewest teeth are the most powerful - there's a reason that Professor Chaos and Hypnodisc were two of the most destructive bots of their time.
-
Honestly I fail to see the point of this. This new building style you are speaking about is basically DSL-S with a few tiny changes, but since it follows the same basis as DSL-S it is DSL-S in all but name. Naming it differently won't make it different.
No need to make a new building style if it is basically a clone of an existing style.
I am all for new building styles, but they have to *be* new. I can see that you are trying to make building progress and I can appreciate that, and please do not take my criticism as "no, you are stupid and wrong" but as I explained you are reinventing the wheel.
Also DSA is HORRIBLE in dsl, it's actually the worst armor choice in the game. IIRC it's weaker than Plastic 1, while heavier, and Alu 3 is far, far tougher for the same weight.
And as I said, no one will follow you in banning DSA from stock. Stock chassis already die in a few hits from good stock weapons, and all components are very fragile. No need to make bots even more fragile by banning DSA.
I'd add a clause about excessive spikes or teeth. Non realistic robots are built to exploit the fact that even steel-10 armor can be destroyed if it gets scratched a lot.
That's called "IRL building". Have you seen his rules ? They're DSL-S.
-
I appreciate the effort, but this wasn't needed. If it was for you to understand the rules better before you build a bot, sure, do what works for you.