Realistic rules for DSL

[Jack Daniels]

I was going to post this in Sage's showcase... but I didn't want to derail his thread or encourage people to talk about this subject because it would be rude to fill his showcase with anything but comments about his bots.

Anyways:

It really is kinda too bad that the collective "powers that be" had not made an official rule set for DSL back when the game was fresh and new.  Nowadays, the popularity is just not strong enough to justify making a specific realistic rule-set for every builder to use as a guide. (kinda like how Battlebots has specific builders rules)

Plus with the upcoming release of a new DSL... it makes it not worth it to establish ground rules now.

However, since there is a new DSL in the works, should we make a point to establish rules on building for realistic tournaments when the release hits?  Those rules can evolve and change as we learn more... They can be established by collective vote or something.

Some rules that come to mind would be:

-Weight limits of what you can attach to certain weak material extenders.
-Valid uses of hinges/skirts/etc
-Possibility of "Judge panels" that can reject bots that are submitted based on how much the bot sways from being IRL realistic vs exploiting game mechanics.
-Having separate rule-sets that govern tournaments.

• DSL "anything goes" ruleset
• DSL "must look and be built based on IRL physics" ruleset
• DSL "????" ruleset  etc etc

I, personally, would like to see stock as being like a builders playground.  Anything goes.  But DSL is really, fundamentally, designed to give us a more realistic experience.  I think it is valuable to try to tame the realism factor for DSL or at least establish a fixed set of rules for the future when the new DSL version is released.  If we work with Click on this... the "official rules" could be posted on the website for reference.

I realize that making such "rules" would not please everyone, which is why I encourage that we make two separate rule sets for future installments of DSL that lean in either direction.  "Ultra Realistic" rules and "Not-so Realistic" rules.

Thoughts? Input? ideas?

[Badnik96]

I don't get how a popup with a HUGE rack of weapons is considered "realistic". If you have to cut a slot into the wedge that's the same size as the wedge, then the wedge would be nonexistent IRL.

[Naryar]

I use ruleset n°2, as well as no glitch use for purposes other than building.

[Badnik96]

I like #2 also.

[cephalopod]

I think #2 is much better IMO.

[JoeBlo]

we have potentially 3 DSL 2 versions to work with here
 
2.1, Nar's and 123's
 
how about carry different rule sets for each ? we get new rules without changing the old ? it would be up to either one of those guys but it could work out that way ?
 
remeber I setup general rules at the start of Backlash thread?

[123savethewhales]

The problem is that the game mechanics isn't exactly ultra realistic, as such, it isn't easy to enforce ultra realism.  Aside from things like stacking, BFE, or a component cutting through entirely, other stuff are somewhat difficult to enforce.

Through I agree that the "cutting through" rule is really being pushed to the breaking point (such as for many popups).  The only rational is to argue that the razor is actually not triangular, but flat.

[G.K.]

#2, but perhaps making changes if aboslutely necessary.

[Clickbeetle]

There is kind of an official realistic ruleset for DSL, it's just never been written down explicitly.  Evidence: any DSL bot that is acceptable in one tournament is currently acceptable in others too.

JoeBlo quotes my realistic rules that I wrote for BBEANS2 a lot.  Basically I just ban intersecting components that couldn't intersect IRL.  I could easily be more specific to prevent abuse and the creation of "technically realistic but wouldn't actually work IRL" bots, but I wanted to keep things simple, so that anyone can just fire up DSL and build a bot and know right away what is allowed and what isn't without having to go look up a list of rules.

That said, I think in some cases (tournaments, etc.), an "advanced" realistic ruleset would be good to have.  Some things that could be included with such a ruleset:

-No more than 3 weapon components in parallel (so 8 spikes around the circumference of a 100cm disk = OK.  8 spikes all lined up in parallel on extenders coming off of a burst motor = Not OK.)

-Um... something limiting the length of front wedges.

Those rules would be hard to write though, because there would always be exceptions.  You could limit skirt length, but what about bots like Final Destiny?  Bots with long skirts that drag on the floor do exist in real life, they're just rare.

[MikeNCR]

It wouldn't make a good universal rule, as not everyone knows the ins and outs of how to design and build real bots, but I always ask myself if I could build the bot I'm making in the real world with minimal design modification. An extreme example is my bot where the weapon is a vertical drum that covers the entire chassis with only the wheels and supports outside of the drum- I used Eteks attached to disks to simulate the real world setup that would have had the drum riding on a large hollow axle allowing the internals to be connected.

[JoeBlo]

JoeBlo quotes my realistic rules that I wrote for BBEANS2 a lot. 

yes for it is simple, easy to understand and no "grey area's" :D

changing the general rules now (as in the showcases and such) seems a little silly for that is thousands and thousands of robots down the drain. it should be left up to tournaments to manage new rules not throw out ones we already have.

[Sage]

Ok, I think we need a LEGIT, ACCEPTED realistic RULE for GENERAL DSL building. Here's my take:

DSL REALISTIC RULES

1. Objects may not pass through other objects when a slot could not be made in real life. If the slot is too large where the functionality of the bot would be severely compromised if it WAS cut in real life, it is not acceptable.
2. Batteries may not be stacked.
3. No chaining motors.


That's the way I have been doing it, and that's the way I think it should be done. Things like extender strength, chassis shapes, wiring (trying to imagine how it would be wired in real life) and things of that nature are too complicated to be applicable in DSL. Remember, the main point of the realistic rule is to prevent heavily stacked spinners like we see in stock all the time.

Thoughts?

[MikeNCR]

*supermegabump*


Since my though is just an expansion on this, I'm not making a new topic.


I think within the realm of "realistic" there is room for some basic BFE, but only in such a way that the robot remains realistic. I've not done large amounts of bfe, but I think things like adjusting chassis height should be allowed, as that's something that is normally available when building real robots. The game seems to account for the loss of chassis height with a reduction in chassis weight and hit points, so that's not an unfair advantage. An obvious requirement would be that the parts in the chassis must fit within the chassis at the BFE'd height.


Mostly, I don't see a reason that a wider range of chassis heights shouldn't be allowed as long as the design remains realistic.


I suspect there are more BFE methods that could be used to add variety to robots in a realistic manner, though I've not done any work with those methods.

[Pwnator]

Back then, I used to do some BFE on components with ridiculously bulky collision meshes (especially BSGs and non-LeftandRight-NPCs). But now I just work around them since I'm too lazy to do all the accurate stuff. :P

[LiNcK]

*supermegabump*


Since my though is just an expansion on this, I'm not making a new topic.


I think within the realm of "realistic" there is room for some basic BFE, but only in such a way that the robot remains realistic. I've not done large amounts of bfe, but I think things like adjusting chassis height should be allowed, as that's something that is normally available when building real robots. The game seems to account for the loss of chassis height with a reduction in chassis weight and hit points, so that's not an unfair advantage. An obvious requirement would be that the parts in the chassis must fit within the chassis at the BFE'd height.


Mostly, I don't see a reason that a wider range of chassis heights shouldn't be allowed as long as the design remains realistic.


I suspect there are more BFE methods that could be used to add variety to robots in a realistic manner, though I've not done any work with those methods.

Well, Then the people that cant BFE would have a disadvantage because they do have those chassis limits, They do have to deal with the fail-collisions & Stuff :P

[MikeNCR]

Well, Then the people that cant BFE would have a disadvantage because they do have those chassis limits, They do have to deal with the fail-collisions & Stuff :P

That'd be a great point if stuff like editing chassis height were at all difficult to do. I'm also not talking about doing outright part swaps or anything. I'm talking about some specific types of bfe that allow realistic chassis shape modifications to be made, you still need to be able to put the parts on the robot. At some point it might even be possible with all the fun exe work that's been done to edit the slider so that it can adjust the chassis height down to the smallest motor/battery height available.

[Sage]

Well, Then the people that cant BFE would have a disadvantage because they do have those chassis limits, They do have to deal with the fail-collisions & Stuff :P

Just like people who can't use glitches in stock?

[LiNcK]

Well, Then the people that cant BFE would have a disadvantage because they do have those chassis limits, They do have to deal with the fail-collisions & Stuff :P

Just like people who can't use glitches in stock?

Yeah... That made me think that my comment was reatrded :P
Too much time off RA2, Gotta get back & Fix mah black screenshots prob...

[Scrap Daddy]

Well, Then the people that cant BFE would have a disadvantage because they do have those chassis limits, They do have to deal with the fail-collisions & Stuff :P

Just like people who can't use glitches in stock?

Never stopped some people from BFEing in stock.

[somestrangeguy]

Yep, a whole lot of my bots have BFE in them, I just forgot wich ones because there is so many. I prety much do everything with BFE because eFFeing and Snapper/Axle loading is too troublesome, what I do is put parts I want to attach by BFE in a seperate place and then change attachemnt points so that I get same result as eFFe glitch :P