Building Styles - A Discussion

[cephalopod]

It strikes me that some of our newer members take strides towards saying they are not DSL Standard builders, but Realistic builders, or IRL Builders.


What some may not realise is that Realistic falls upon DSL Standard a lot more than IRL.


The 3 main building styles in RA2 are
1) Unrealistic - only generally used in stock. Here, components can go through each other, meaning stacking components and moving parts going through batteries for example is perfectly legal.
2) DSL Standard, once known as Realistic - Obeys the age old DSL Realistic Rule. No components can pass through each other, but intersects may be allowed, for example if components can be welded together in a certain way, or a hole can be cut in the chassis. DSL Standard is a lot like IRL without the axle supports and aesthetic approach. A much better explanation of this can be seen here - https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php?topic=12002.0
3) IRL - EVERYTHING should be possible and plausible on a real life bot. No floating axles, no superthin extenders holding up 220kg motors, etc.


It comes across to me that some may not know the true meaning of DSL Standard, taking it to be much more like Unrealistic.
An example here (sorry to use you) is this recent bot by Helloface199

In the posts after he strives to say that this is realistic (implying IRL) - however the thin poly skirts would clearly not be done in real life, therefore making this either a technically illegal IRL bot, or a Standard bot for someone just getting into building. And I think in this case it is the 2nd.


Take this post apart as you will, and feel free to add/argue against me.

[MassimoV]

Pretty much hit it on the head. It needs to be completely possible in real life.

[Resetti's Replicas]

I'm confused about whether IRL is a question of could, would, or should.  What I see in that picture is something that could be done in real life. There's no good reason to put all that extra stuff on the hammer, but it's far from the weirdest weapon I've seen

[cephalopod]

Yeah, it could be done, of course it could, but would it? I think IRL Builders need to ask themselves both of those, especially the would it be done. I mean sure, stick bits of poly on the side of your axe if you want, but when the reasoning is to help with self-righting, surely the poly would snap under such weight in a real situation.

[SKBT]

thin lexan is flexible. it won't snap, it will bend out of the way.



i've always viewed irl building is about trying to replicate the feel and functionality of real robots.

i'll use my bot "contender" as an example.



it uses NPC fast with techno wheels for drive, has metal hinge wedges, the best plows, built to the weight limit and holds its own against the DSL 2.1 AI.

sounds pretty abusive to the irl rules right?



what i'm trying to say is as long as there is a real life counterpart in looks and performance, a robot is realistic.

irl is not about putting spikes all over a robot (nary) or building a bad dsl bot and calling it irl.

[madman3]

thin lexan is flexible. it won't snap, it will bend out of the way.



i've always viewed irl building is about trying to replicate the feel and functionality of real robots.

i'll use my bot "contender" as an example.

(Image removed from quote.)

it uses NPC fast with techno wheels for drive, has metal hinge wedges, the best plows, built to the weight limit and holds its own against the DSL 2.1 AI.

sounds pretty abusive to the irl rules right?



what i'm trying to say is as long as there is a real life counterpart in looks and performance, a robot is realistic.

irl is not about putting spikes all over a robot (nary) or building a bad dsl bot and calling it irl.

While I agree on your last statement, it's evidently far easier to replicate the potency of some bot styles in IRL building (GODDAMN DRUMS) compared to others, so I think there should still be some level of moderation regarding the efficiency of IRL bots, because otherwise stuff like Rammers (generally pretty powerful IRL in the right matchup) will be pretty much entirely redundant.

So I don't think it's necessarily to have bots to realistic levels of efficiency, but I don't think it should be greater levels, instead perhaps just lower levels, because that way there's a flatter efficiency line so any given RA2 IRL contest can feature a greater variety of bot types without it getting overly swerved towards VS, Drums, Sheck Spinners and HS, because, let's face it, those are the bot types that are most effective in IRL building simply because they have better damage potential.

Given that IRL is mostly just for aesthetic purposes, I don't think it's even necessarily a good idea to have tournaments for it, seeing as it's unrepresentative of the intended features of the builds.

[AlexGRFan97]

i've always viewed irl building is about trying to replicate the feel and functionality of real robots.
what i'm trying to say is as long as there is a real life counterpart in looks and performance, a robot is realistic.
irl is not about putting spikes all over a robot (nary) or building a bad dsl bot and calling it irl.

This, this and this.

[123savethewhales]

Here's the dilemma with IRL, you are throwing them in tournaments in DSL platform with RA2 physics.  Since they function nothing like real life, it creates conflict of interest every step of the way.

So say building a wedge, using just the center point in skirt hinge will be better than the 2 side points.  You have a choice, deliberately use the 2 side points on the skirt hinge to make it look better/function worst, or use just the middle.

Or say building a VS, you have a choice of cutting tooth or razor tips.  Would you choose a significantly worst cutting tooth for the look?  Or just throw the razor tips on anyway.

Or in choosing bot types, do I want a lifter that will most likely lose?  Or do I want a drum, wedge VS, or shell, that functions just as good in RA2 as they do IRL?  Or do I want to go 1 step further and build some bot that failed hard in Battlebot (ex. FSnS), but nevertheless exist and will totally kickass in DSL?

Then you host a tournament and the people who win are those who's bots are technically IRL, but clearly caters to DSL component stats and RA2 physics.

The solution to all this is fairly simple, just include a vote at the end of each IRL tournaments, which counts for a certain percentage.  Then everyone can input their opinions on what IRL should be.

[Naryar]

For me IRL is just building with coolness and aesthetics and originality in mind, while sacrificing combat efficiency. Not building more realistic.

Building efficiency is exactly the same in both irl and dsl standard. Else you lose weight because of some stupid arbitrary rule.

Of course, that means IRL tournaments are no competition, but more like an animated showcase. Not to mention than IRL seems to become the standard for DSL fighting these days, which is alarming.

[Badnik96]

I agree 100% with SKBT.

[dragonsteincole]

This is hypothetical, but I feel that I do have a part in this conversation. If we were to decide today on categories to put bots into, and then use those to define styles of tournaments, I would come up with 4.

Unrealistic and DSL Standard I would keep the same as in Craaig's post. but I would split 'IRL' into 2 styles, with both sharing the following traits:

- Larger Chassis than DSL STandard/Unrealistic
- Main priority is to be aesthetically pleasing. Therefore more elaborate paintjobs and component selection.

My two definitions of IRL would be as follows:

3) American Style - Bots that are still eye-candy but are generally built to a higher standard. Use of larger and higher quality components and more efficient. Also the use of bot types that are more prevelant/successful in american competitions - Drums, Ring Spinners and large HS/VS, flamethrowers. Other types are seen far less due to enclosed arenas/higher build standards (Flippers, Axes, crushers).

4) British Style - More colourful and appealing to the eye, these are mainly built to look or function a certain way, at the cost of efficiency. Flippers, axes, saws, rammers, generally simpler weapons are more prevalent due to arena styles (OOTAs being possible), and lower build quality than american bots.

So, using those new categories you could define tournaments as "American IRL", where more combat-effective IRL designs would most likely be more successful than British IRL. And "British IRL" would be akin to modern day Roaming Robots, where spinners of any type are generally outlawed, thus focusing on the less effective but more showy bot types.

[Sage]

or people could build whatever they want

[MassimoV]

or people could build whatever they want

This is kinda what I want.

[cephalopod]

thin lexan is flexible. it won't snap, it will bend out of the way.

Therefore it won't act like it does in RA2 aiding self-righting? In my view you shouldn't use things that don't work in real life like RA2, like flails or assuming lexan is a rigid body. Metal hinge wedges make sense in some examples, like your own.
Anyway I'ma stop checking this thread as the conflicting angles on it is driving me mad. I just always thought IRL means everything on it should be possible and do-able for a good reason in real life.

[helloface]

:,(

[boombabyboom]

my bulding stye is what i call ''copycat'' i build stuff that come to mine like Y.O.L.O is a lightwight i saw 2 years ago

not the best building style but i like it

[cephalopod]

I'm going to bump this thread up, just to some of the new guys can read what I personally think are the definitions, and maybe to spark a bit of discussion into making more general definitions agreed by everyone.

[helloface]

I'm going to bump this thread up, just to some of the new guys can read what I personally think are the definitions, and maybe to spark a bit of discussion into making more general definitions agreed by everyone.

Why not sticky the thread?

[playzooki]

or people could build whatever they want

This is kinda what I want.

i agree. We shouldnt limit what people build.

[cephalopod]

No, it shouldn't be limited at all, but it's kinda hard to do that and run tournaments. That's the only reason anything is classified in my opinion. People should build what they want and if they want to enter a tournament, they build to that style I guess - but people naturally want to build for tournaments so people usually always build to those styles. If you were to run a tournament with no limiting features, you'd actually be limiting people who want to be competitive further, as naturally stock-style unrealism would be the only contender.