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 - R0B0SH4RK
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 104
421
« on: May 30, 2011, 01:14:03 AM »
<3 COOLRUNNER's bot. Win or lose, it's got my vote for most awesum bot in the tourney. Urjak's blatantly-illegal-in-every-way-so-i'll-use-AI-to-circumvent-the-rules shell on the other hand = do not want. (Nothing against you Urjee, but 1-wheel SnS with Melty Brain is just pushing "realistic" waaaaaaay too far.) I can take solace in the fact that WTF, Mate? will beat it if they meet though. Pretty convincing win there. =] Good job, LiNcK.
I absolutely loved battle 10, Lots of destruction!!<3
And I FINALLY win a tournament battle! :D Now its time for me to take over the whole thing >:3 Unless I have to fight Craig at some point, I dont think I would have a chance agaisnt a VS :P
I actually think I have a chance of winning my next battle, Mostly coz a spinner doesnt have wedges :D
Hey, I picked you to make it all the way to the finals. DO NOT DISAPPOINT :O
422
« on: May 29, 2011, 05:03:39 PM »
Trov said this: All the stock wheels have 1 grip and 400HP (the default for wheels). The only difference, besides the obvious size and weight, is that shinies and minis don't have .2 resistance (they have .12 and .1).
If resistance is related to turning (as stated on the beetlebros site) then having nearly anything else would be beneficial.
So, I modified an old SnS into this: Basically, the upward angled Irons make it a Tempus Fugit-style HS killer. In fact, it beat TF 7/8 times testing. Lack of razors means that it occasionally struggles against wedges though, as it tends to bounce off. As for the Buzzard wheels, yes they do seem to make a difference in turn speed. It at least looks like it spins faster than it's previous incarnation. You guys think that Buzzards/Grannies could become more common on SnS, where turnspeed is critical if resistance is related to turning?
423
« on: May 29, 2011, 01:31:21 PM »
New bot? New bot. I was toying around with ideas for a new Ripblade for ReStocked (granted, I haven't been following the progress of the pack so I have no idea if Sage and co. already have it covered), and I came up with something that I don't actually think would be a suitable replacement, but is cool nonetheless:  DSA, completely invertible, could be MW if it wasn't an orgy of inefficient extender work. To get it down to a MW, I'll just switch the two side t-connectors to 20cm extenders, which will save me about 6(?)kg. Hopefully I can have more stuff to post soon enough.
424
« on: May 29, 2011, 02:47:41 AM »
What are the rubbers for?
To avoid unwanted children. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh.
(Image removed from quote.)
Anyway, here it is, with BFE goodness for ease of viewing:
(Image removed from quote.)
It's kinda annoying when a motor's higher than the other, but it can still fool anybody from afar. :P
d00d, nice setup. In my experience, AGOD is generally caused by the orientation of the snapper. When mounted on its side, maces tend to AGOD much more than when the motor is mounted on its bottom (I think that Clickbeetle had this theory originally). Hope this helps.
425
« on: May 28, 2011, 03:49:07 AM »
What are the rubbers for?
To avoid unwanted children. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh. Pwn - I liek. Can I see innards please? No idea what you've done there.
426
« on: May 12, 2011, 04:19:26 PM »
Dat drum :O
How's the damage? I haven't really been able to make a drum like that to be very damaging, and the bracket wedges look like they'd hinder the gut-ripping factor.
427
« on: May 08, 2011, 04:53:09 AM »
Holy crap guys, just finished beating Portal 2 last night. Mind = blown. The greatest ending to a video game that I have ever seen. Aaah, one of my favourite parts... 'This must be the part where he kills us.' 'THIS IS THE PART WHERE I KILL YOU!' *Chapter title flashes up - 'The Part Where He Kills You'*
(':
You forgot: "Achievement Unlocked: The Part Where He Kills You" :3
428
« on: May 06, 2011, 01:47:52 PM »
To with storylines, I was talking about the art style.
Look, like the thing Kujii posted doesn't really bug me.
THIS weirds me out.
(Image removed from quote.)
I mean what kind of twisted person creates a freak like that?
So... you're basing your entire judgement of a type of foreign art on a single style of drawing? That's cool. I hate all paintings ever created because the Picasso guy was weird. Seriously, his stuff is just too crazy. Therefore, since they're all paint-on-canvas, all painters are the same and they all suck and they're all weird and I hate them all. I guess we have something in common then, not getting the appeal of a vastly broad medium because of the sweeping generalizations we've made based solely on a microscopic sample size of a specific offshoot. High-five.
430
« on: May 05, 2011, 05:00:43 PM »
I run into that all the time, and I find it to be more of a pain in the ass than anything. Completely useless IMO.
431
« on: May 02, 2011, 03:03:19 AM »
Hows he a fake?
He didn't flip the 2 SnS, they were stuck in the wall when the match started!
BADNIK. WAY TO RUIN A JOKE. SUCH A PARTY POOPER.
432
« on: May 02, 2011, 03:00:18 AM »
*Sees Ronin*
By the way, I voted for aXon. Mostly because I have absolutely zero confidence that Joe's bot works the way he says it does.
433
« on: April 28, 2011, 01:00:28 AM »
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct. So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
Pretty sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?
434
« on: April 27, 2011, 10:54:25 PM »
^ That man speaks the truth. Sometimes lag makes everything more fun.
435
« on: April 27, 2011, 10:52:49 PM »
13daybumplol Anyways, Madiaba succeeded in creating an invisible chassis IIRC. However, since all baseplate components are invisible anyways outside of the botlab, everything attached directly to the chassis is invisible too. See here: https://gametechmods.com/forums/index.php/topic,1951.15.html
436
« on: April 27, 2011, 10:48:22 PM »
Just so we're clear, I'm an atheist, Frezal's an atheist, and what's 123STW? I like how we're arguing about the merits of the side of the argument we think is wrong.
ANYWAYS:
@123STW: The generally accepted definition of God when debating its existence is: - a personal being - that created the universe - that is all-powerful (has powers outside of the natural laws) - that is all-knowing - that is perfectly good (entirely against all evil) - that loves ALL of us
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
437
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:48:01 PM »
438
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:41:46 PM »
^ Not sure that you're giving pro-existence of God arguments enough credit there. After all, I'm fairly sure that we can't observe certain subatomic particles directly, but we can interpret their existence through their effects on the observable world and therefore deduce their existence. Philosophically speaking, there are many compelling arguments for God that can made in the same vein as this (ie: the Argument from Design, although I am personally unconvinced by this one). Saying that all theists are merely "blindly believing in myths" is a fallacy. When someone mixes religious theory with scientific theory, what are they? (And before you say "stupid", please answer my question sensibly)
If the "religious theory" involves God, you're a theist. If it does not, you're an atheist. The "scientific theory" is irrelevant since you can postulate circumstances in which both God and science can coexist. Darwin, for example, was not an atheist despite his findings and observations.
439
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:05:48 PM »
Hammers were stuck lolz
SSSSHHHHHHHH. DON'T TELL THAT TO SAGE.
440
« on: April 27, 2011, 01:01:10 PM »
BR rebuild is meh :/
The FS on the other hand, <3
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 104
|