This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Urjak
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 144
241
« on: November 27, 2011, 04:41:35 PM »
Where's your BW? D:
Good point. I will post my AW, BW, and SHW FSS later.
242
« on: November 27, 2011, 03:38:45 PM »
I'm 85% sure this won't work, but how about static srimechs on the HW or possibly the MW?
How? In order to have a "realistic" static srimech it would have to poke out through the axle, and I see no way I could do that on any of the shell spinners, seeing as the axle is well out of range for a multi-extender.
243
« on: November 27, 2011, 03:11:44 PM »
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST IS LONG AND CONTAINS LARGE AMOUNTS OF FLAILS (Naryar, be warned). Well, I feel that I have hit a brick wall in regards to improving my FSS designs. Sure I could try different weapon configurations, but I feel there is no new way of designing FSS to gain new advantages. But, before I give up, I am going to post my LW, MW, and HW FSS's in their most recent incarnation and see if you guys can come up with anything you see to improve. First, Bane Revolution III:   Bane Revolution III uses a TWRM motor to power 10 flail razors, and is protected underneath by a Medium DSL disk. Now I know Bane Revolution V (Firestorm Bane) is technically the latest incarnation, but his performance is not quite adequate enough yet (this will probably be my last area of FSS fine tuning). Second, Circle of Thorns IX:   Circle of Thorns uses an E-tech to power 16 flail and 2 static razors, and uses a Large DSL disk for defense. Last, Weapon Array V:   Weapon Array uses a Dual Perm to power ~30 flail razors, and uses an NPC fast for drive. The bottom is protected by three half-sheets (they are invulnerable, so they can resist strong attacks from popups like Hope No More). Any suggestions on how to improve any of these designs or simply new avenues for which I could peruse would be greatly appreciated.
244
« on: November 26, 2011, 08:44:37 PM »
Wouldn't I need a bigger underside disc if I was to mount the E-tek on it?
Don't. Even if a popup manages to take off your bottom armor, you still have a chance to win if your weapons are still online. Attaching the E-tech to the disk would mean you lose everything...
245
« on: November 25, 2011, 10:53:06 PM »
You know those shell spinner parts. When possible, use diffrent parts, like plastic extenders or carbon and the other discs. They save weight for weapons.
The problem with that line of thought is that a shell panel has three, evenly distributed attachment points for 4kg. In order to achieve that, you would have to use two polycarb extenders, which are more vulnerable, and have far less hit points. I have used them for my BW FSS (or cage spinner), but for anything more substantial you are better off with the shell panels.
246
« on: November 25, 2011, 07:30:13 PM »
The DSL disc with 4 ap?
Correct. Having built and rebuilt Circle of Thorns (my MW FSS), I would say that the ideal motors are either the E-tech or the Tornado Mer gearbox (depending on how many weapons you want). The problem with the Tornado motor is that it is incredibly difficult to mount externally, meaning you have to put it inside the chassis, meaning you have to have a big chassis. A large chassis weighs more and is harder to protect. I build my FSS with an E-tech, and can get 16 flail and 2 static razors with bottom protection. So, if you want advice designed to max out its efficiency, I would recommend changing your motor to an E-tech, shrinking your chassis, getting a Medium2 DSL disk for bottom protection, and going one-wheeled Melty Brain for drive.
247
« on: November 25, 2011, 07:08:29 PM »
I worry about true popups getting at the chassis and motor, but the bot looks pretty deadly.
248
« on: November 25, 2011, 07:05:39 PM »
Granted, there were plenty other unIRL bots, such as Top Comment, but unfortunately you were the first guy that popped up in my head. It's not a personal attack on you, I was just using your entries as an example of some of the stuff that can be entered. Shark, for instance, might be technically an IRL design, but I've never seen any shell spinner with weapons such as that one. The comments were explaining how the seeding system seems a little flawed, rather than trying to take shots against your entries, but they weren't exactly - and I know I'll get some backlash for saying this - within the spirit of the tournament, in my view. Cue Naryar going on one of his tirades about efficiency and ballasts and empty space and suchlike. From what I've seen, in this sort of tournament, if you can manage to place aesthetics first, give efficiency a lower priority, and still build a decent machine, then everybody has fun.
I understand. I try never to take criticism personally, because it almost always isn't intended that way. On the topic of Shark and the spirit of the tournament, I honestly don't understand why people think they need to be able to find actual examples of bots that, in Shark's example, have the exact same weapon layout. Their is no disputing that you can bolt two hammers and four spikes onto a spinning shell for a real combat robot, so there is no disputing that it is IRL realistic. This is not replica wars, you don't need to find exact examples of your bot to determine whether it is IRL realistic. What bugs me about people commenting on the "IRLness" or "spirit" of a given bot is that those people have certain criteria which often aren't held by everyone. Some people think the bot has to aesthetically look good, others need an exact example of it from actual combat robots. Others simply don't want metal hinges and weapon spam. I think we do a disservice to tournaments like this by not actually defining what IRL realistic means. Personally, the voting system seems like the most rational solution at this point, because getting everybody to agree on what "IRL realistic" means would likely be impossible.
249
« on: November 25, 2011, 06:42:59 PM »
Take Urjak. He won many fights by being not really very realistic, and now he gets a reserved place.
I'd agree with the downsides of the seeding system. For one thing, 12 out of 20 seems too many, in my view. Plus, I would much rather see dragonsteincole's machines in the tournament than Urjak's barely realistic stuff, but Urjak's "seeding" as a result of winning more matches, means he would gain automatic entry. I don't think that's fair, personally.
But if they do enter, then they bump another entry out of the bracket. I - at the risk of being decapitated - REALLY don't want Urjak stretching the IRL rules as far as he can, and pushing a much better "IRL" entry out of the brackets. I think a better way of making this work would be that a seed can claim their spot in only one of the four brackets. That would give the unseeded machines a chance to battle as well.
Jesus. If it means that much to you guys I won't enter, even though in the last tournament all my bots were perfectly IRL realistic with the exception of the HW's invincible bottom armor (which I already apologized for). I am not sure exactly why you guys are focusing on me, as I saw plenty of other bots that were as "unIRLlisitc" as mine supposedly were.
250
« on: November 22, 2011, 09:12:20 AM »
I feel bad about the whole invincible bottom armor thing. I wanted to give my bot some bottom defense, so, with my DSL-realism bot building mind, I attached half-sheets to the bottom, completely forgetting that they are invincible and thus not IRL.
251
« on: November 15, 2011, 10:04:57 PM »
I am going to feel really bad as my SHW tears that thing to shreds. :P
Just kidding. I look forward to meeting you in the arena.
252
« on: November 15, 2011, 09:23:27 AM »
The hw doesn't look irl at all to me.
What?! You mean a box with a plow and a Son of Whyachi- style weapon system isn't IRL realistic?
253
« on: November 14, 2011, 11:41:26 PM »
Does BB4 require massive amounts of empty space?
Nope, but many IRL bots aren't built with airtight chassis.
254
« on: November 14, 2011, 10:36:50 PM »
the heavyweight sucks.
If you are going to comment, I would appreciate it if you would be a bit more specific.
255
« on: November 14, 2011, 10:18:51 PM »
Hello Everybody! Here are two of my BB4 entries (the other two are Shark and Totality): First up, Redalgo:   Redalgo is an LW VS with a Perm 80 driving three Heavy and Light DSL Teath. The bot was meant to emulate the kinds of BW VS's I have seen in real life robot combat. I'm no IRL-style bot artist, but I don't think this bot is that bad. Second, Titan:   Titan is an HW HS with a Dual Perm powering three 70kg hammers, with two NPC fasts for drive. The bot has a fully protected bottom, and a heavy plow for some frontal defense. All in all he is probably my favorite entrant (alongside my SHW VS Totality). Any comments would be appreciated. :D
256
« on: November 14, 2011, 09:31:17 PM »
I gues everyone likes the VS idea because of Urjaks success.
And I entered the same bot into BB4. 
257
« on: November 13, 2011, 06:06:27 PM »
What's the difference between a pile of dead babies and Absolute Chaos?
You can't make Absolute Chaos with sledgehammers.
^That, my six-legged friend, was a win.
258
« on: November 08, 2011, 09:08:40 AM »
[unfunny joke] Whats long and black? The unemployment line [/unfunny joke]
Also:
(Image removed from quote.)
(Image removed from quote.)
Maybe you're going to put back some quality into this thread, all these damn newfags are filling it with unfunny [/grumpyvetmode]
You guys are kind of proving his point...
259
« on: November 08, 2011, 09:00:27 AM »
I would like to request that my AI be changed, even though I swore I sent you my own. It would really be best if my bot spun up its weapons at the beginning of the match.
260
« on: November 07, 2011, 10:38:56 PM »
I'll be sending an entry in soon.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ... 144
|
Show Posts