Robot Arena 3

[09090901]

I encourage everyone to make EMERGENCY clones. With 1300 units of chassis weight using Steel/Fibreglass and 2050 units total it's not super duper fast (then again I'm using Z-Teks and not PSUs) but seeing it plow and flip through everything makes me forget  :beer:momentarily that the game is broken.

They're letting us build too light a robot for the torque of the biggest motors; more speed, less power.

Pretty sure armor applies a speed penalty without taking weight into consideration. Don't have time to test it right now, but I wouldn't be suprised considering the rest of the mechanics.

[J]

.....

Why is there....

..........

A tournament..........

....................

With an armadillo on it......................

[RedSawn]

I encourage everyone to make EMERGENCY clones. With 1300 units of chassis weight using Steel/Fibreglass and 2050 units total it's not super duper fast (then again I'm using Z-Teks and not PSUs) but seeing it plow and flip through everything makes me forget  :beer:momentarily that the game is broken.

They're letting us build too light a robot for the torque of the biggest motors; more speed, less power.

Pretty sure armor applies a speed penalty without taking weight into consideration. Don't have time to test it right now, but I wouldn't be suprised considering the rest of the mechanics.

Not sure about that one - I've got bigger, heavier non-PSU bots that go quick based on how the motors don't cause the bot to wheelie or flip over constantly. I've also got micro bots with micro motors that aren't exactly slow either taking into account scale speed that don't seem to be affected speedwise by the minor changes in weight a small chassis brings.

[09090901]

I encourage everyone to make EMERGENCY clones. With 1300 units of chassis weight using Steel/Fibreglass and 2050 units total it's not super duper fast (then again I'm using Z-Teks and not PSUs) but seeing it plow and flip through everything makes me forget  :beer:momentarily that the game is broken.

They're letting us build too light a robot for the torque of the biggest motors; more speed, less power.

Pretty sure armor applies a speed penalty without taking weight into consideration. Don't have time to test it right now, but I wouldn't be suprised considering the rest of the mechanics.

Not sure about that one - I've got bigger, heavier non-PSU bots that go quick based on how the motors don't cause the bot to wheelie or flip over constantly. I've also got micro bots with micro motors that aren't exactly slow either taking into account scale speed that don't seem to be affected speedwise by the minor changes in weight a small chassis brings.

I'm talking more about the armor than the weight. For example,  take two bots that weigh the same, but one with plastic and the other with steel. The bot that has steel will be slower than the other with plastic because of an invisible speed penalty.

[RedSawn]

Oh, I should have been clear. I see no difference from armor in small bots, while bigger bots it can be the difference between limited/no control and high speed.

[RFS]

For what it's worth, the official Battlebots page teased a video game earlier today, and got 700ish likes on the post as of now. There's money in this game if the devs have the initiative and drive to learn and do this right.

lol BattleBots only posted that recently discovered 2002 concept art because I dug it up and posted it to Reddit. 

Still trying to convince them to hire a developer/publisher to finish and release it. I guarantee it would sell. RA3 is proof enough that people want a game, and just looking at the videos from the original BB game teasers shows something with a lot more functionality and action than this.

It looks like they were selling the GameCube version on their website: http://store.battlebots.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=154_156&product_id=240

It was never actually for sale, that listing is there as a mistake. I had asked about it before. :P

[09090901]

For what it's worth, the official Battlebots page teased a video game earlier today, and got 700ish likes on the post as of now. There's money in this game if the devs have the initiative and drive to learn and do this right.

lol BattleBots only posted that recently discovered 2002 concept art because I dug it up and posted it to Reddit. 

Still trying to convince them to hire a developer/publisher to finish and release it. I guarantee it would sell. RA3 is proof enough that people want a game, and just looking at the videos from the original BB game teasers shows something with a lot more functionality and action than this.

It looks like they were selling the GameCube version on their website: http://store.battlebots.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=154_156&product_id=240

It was never actually for sale, that listing is there as a mistake. I had asked about it before. :P

this guys claims to have the game
https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php?topic=18910.0

[Mecha]

For what it's worth, the official Battlebots page teased a video game earlier today, and got 700ish likes on the post as of now. There's money in this game if the devs have the initiative and drive to learn and do this right.

lol BattleBots only posted that recently discovered 2002 concept art because I dug it up and posted it to Reddit. 

Still trying to convince them to hire a developer/publisher to finish and release it. I guarantee it would sell. RA3 is proof enough that people want a game, and just looking at the videos from the original BB game teasers shows something with a lot more functionality and action than this.

It looks like they were selling the GameCube version on their website: http://store.battlebots.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=154_156&product_id=240

It was never actually for sale, that listing is there as a mistake. I had asked about it before. :P

this guys claims to have the game
https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php?topic=18910.0

Yeah, and unfortunately he hasn't even been online since that day. Seems kinda hopeless.

[RFS]

For what it's worth, the official Battlebots page teased a video game earlier today, and got 700ish likes on the post as of now. There's money in this game if the devs have the initiative and drive to learn and do this right.

lol BattleBots only posted that recently discovered 2002 concept art because I dug it up and posted it to Reddit. 

Still trying to convince them to hire a developer/publisher to finish and release it. I guarantee it would sell. RA3 is proof enough that people want a game, and just looking at the videos from the original BB game teasers shows something with a lot more functionality and action than this.

It looks like they were selling the GameCube version on their website: http://store.battlebots.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=154_156&product_id=240

It was never actually for sale, that listing is there as a mistake. I had asked about it before. :P

this guys claims to have the game
https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php?topic=18910.0

Yeah, and unfortunately he hasn't even been online since that day. Seems kinda hopeless.

Seems more like an attention whore if you ask me. 

[AHeapOfGames]

I put my current opinions into this video. Won't bother typing it all out =P

Should be doing a full review soon.

[Tygron]

Not sure how many of you guys have looked it up or seen it but here's some footage of the PS2 version:
 

But more on topic though, i'm probably gonna pick this game up around next paycheck. I was gonna buy a GTX 1080, but it's only founders editions cards right now and screw that. So I bought a window AC unit :3

EDIT: Totally didn't know it embedded videos to the forum post

[Impossible343]

My take on RA3...

part 1 is focusing on the botlab:

[Scorpio]

Do we know if anyone's asked the dead WHY whatever's broken is broken? Like, for example, are issues such as wedged chassis not registering as such collision-wise or the lack of any sort of speed the result of developer oversight, or are they inherent in the engine?

[Jules]

Do we know if anyone's asked the dead WHY whatever's broken is broken? Like, for example, are issues such as wedged chassis not registering as such collision-wise or the lack of any sort of speed the result of developer oversight, or are they inherent in the engine?

I am fairly experienced with Unity. I even created a robot combat prototype thingy. This is the developer's fault.

[TDS]

Do we know if anyone's asked the dead WHY whatever's broken is broken? Like, for example, are issues such as wedged chassis not registering as such collision-wise or the lack of any sort of speed the result of developer oversight, or are they inherent in the engine?

I am fairly experienced with Unity. I even created a robot combat prototype thingy. This is the developer's fault.

cutting and pasting source code from ra2 works poorly? :P

[RedSawn]

My take on RA3...

• To me the menu music's a little generic but I like the botlab music, the fight music loops way too quickly though and should probably be restricted to intros.
• Yeah, the video settings are a bit pants - they could have at least included a graphics quality dropdown box, using the Unity startup config dialog is pretty lazy. There's Unity tutorials for a proper graphics settings menu, too.
• You can double click on robots to open them, too. Didn't you try that?
• I'm just happy they marked which way is the front in the chassis extruder, I tend to build my RA2 bots pointing downwards in the chassis builder out of habit and that's of course the opposite direction (though we can change orientation in RA2 as we know)
• Adjusting chassis points/layers can be awkward, yeah, but the shape possibilities are worth it. I guess they could add a two/four layer mode for completion's sake
• Suppose the camera changes in the chassis layer editor aren't really necessary, true
• They've got to cater to the builders (and Youtube fakebot video makers) and their cardboard prototypes, right? Wasted opportunity to change the chassis shine/normal a la RA2 though.. but I suppose some Paint Shop textures have that effect already...
• True, a chassis outline would give a depth of field.
• Spawning in the floor oddly doesn't happen to baseplate anchors, which sit perfectly in the chassis. I'm not sure why they are the exception.
• It would really help if the snap to grid function was available for component moving.. there's at least dragging a placed component to rotate it, that's very controllable.
• #MakeHubsShinyAgain
• I wonder what new players think when they see for the first time they don't have to bother placing stuff in the chassis or make sure anything doesn't intersect.
• A whole category for one control board, and no categories for the 30 odd extenders. I do think not having a RA2 Styles menu for the extenders/pistons/etc is pretty untidy
• Some of the alternative mounting points are funny, yeah. The default Small Wedge attach point is essentially using it as armour.
  
• Bad form to leave the placeholder win/loss stats. They did take out the weapon value, but clearly didn't do anything with this.

I feel like I want to build something in Unity myself now too. A learning experience, a way to offer more technical input and something constructive all in one.

[Badger]

My take on RA3...

• To me the menu music's a little generic but I like the botlab music, the fight music loops way too quickly though and should probably be restricted to intros.
• Yeah, the video settings are a bit pants - they could have at least included a graphics quality dropdown box, using the Unity startup config dialog is pretty lazy. There's Unity tutorials for a proper graphics settings menu, too.
• You can double click on robots to open them, too. Didn't you try that?
• I'm just happy they marked which way is the front in the chassis extruder, I tend to build my RA2 bots pointing downwards in the chassis builder out of habit and that's of course the opposite direction (though we can change orientation in RA2 as we know)
• Adjusting chassis points/layers can be awkward, yeah, but the shape possibilities are worth it. I guess they could add a two/four layer mode for completion's sake
• Suppose the camera changes in the chassis layer editor aren't really necessary, true
• They've got to cater to the builders (and Youtube fakebot video makers) and their cardboard prototypes, right? Wasted opportunity to change the chassis shine/normal a la RA2 though.. but I suppose some Paint Shop textures have that effect already...
• True, a chassis outline would give a depth of field.
• Spawning in the floor oddly doesn't happen to baseplate anchors, which sit perfectly in the chassis. I'm not sure why they are the exception.
• It would really help if the snap to grid function was available for component moving.. there's at least dragging a placed component to rotate it, that's very controllable.
• #MakeHubsShinyAgain
• I wonder what new players think when they see for the first time they don't have to bother placing stuff in the chassis or make sure anything doesn't intersect.
• A whole category for one control board, and no categories for the 30 odd extenders. I do think not having a RA2 Styles menu for the extenders/pistons/etc is pretty untidy
• Some of the alternative mounting points are funny, yeah. The default Small Wedge attach point is essentially using it as armour.
• Bad form to leave the placeholder win/loss stats. They did take out the weapon value, but clearly didn't do anything with this.

I feel like I want to build something in Unity myself now too. A learning experience, a way to offer more technical input and something constructive all in one.

do it fam, if you get it to even a slightly playable state you'll get financial backing from GTM to continue

[RedSawn]

Oh god, I ain't that good. I made a low poly rover with WheelColliders and put it in a mars landscape. My own custom robot combat game entirely from scratch is probably currently not a sound investment.

[Jarvis_Rapture]

My opinion of RA3 can be summed up with this short clip

[J]

First ACAMS, and now RFS?

Fuking hell... Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to relive the days of RA2, with this game.

...

Incredible.