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 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 144
421
« on: August 05, 2011, 09:19:42 AM »
Get some sort of stabilizer, ideally a metal hinge wedge, sticking out of the front of the bot so that it won't tip forward when flipping.
422
« on: August 04, 2011, 06:56:28 PM »
-Combat prowess, like most major tournament champions, RPB and NWB
-Fame, like SFTW or Emergency. Anything that is well known.
-Originality, like Death Port 2, Mako or Neglected Waterbug. Basically anything that spawned a new robot type or sub-robot type.
This was my plan for subsequent votes (with only ten bots it didn't seem particularly necessary).
423
« on: August 04, 2011, 06:22:23 PM »
Do you Naryar's works better. Arguing why it should be in is better than a goddamn popularity contest poll consisting of "Vote Botface X just because" entries.
Don't get me wrong, I like Naryar's idea in principle. However, the problem is that people will vote, and give their reasoning. People like Clickbeetle will probably give a detailed explanation, others might give a line or two. How do we know who has given a detailed enough vote? Do we throw out their vote? Force them to redo it? All I see happening is the voter turnout being reduced, and thus the results less representative.
You will judge, and other sensible/rational/fair people as well.
I would prefer the many members of the forum decide, not just me and a select others. I mean if 52 of our members select the inductees, we will get a representation of current collective, not just what the AU's and veterans think. Besides, if only a select few vote, other members can accuse them of bias. When the whole forum votes, that bias is drowned out.
Anyone can post. Almost all reasons are valid.
I never said AU and Vets only post, I said anyone can, if they have a reason for nominating said robot.
Do you really think that is going to help? In all likelihood, every person who voted in the poll had a reason (it might not be all that well thought through, but they do have one). If they post their reasoning and it turns out to be poor reasoning, we can't do anything about it. So the only thing that will be accomplished is that less people will want to vote because they have to post reasoning and have it scrutinized. I think most people will probably not care about others' opinions, thus they probably won't reconsider their reasoning once posted. What I am basically saying is that I don't think the quality of the votes will be improved unless the reasoning is screened, which would lead to over-complication and lower voter turnout.
424
« on: August 04, 2011, 05:53:53 PM »
Naryar's works better. Arguing why it should be in is better than a goddamn popularity contest poll consisting of "Vote Botface X just because" entries.
Don't get me wrong, I like Naryar's idea in principle. However, the problem is that people will vote, and give their reasoning. People like Clickbeetle will probably give a detailed explanation, others might give a line or two. How do we know who has given a detailed enough vote? Do we throw out their vote? Force them to redo it? All I see happening is the voter turnout being reduced, and thus the results less representative.
You will judge, and other sensible/rational/fair people as well.
I would prefer the many members of the forum decide, not just me and a select others. I mean if 52 of our members select the inductees, we will get a representation of current collective, not just what the AU's and veterans think. Besides, if only a select few vote, other members can accuse them of bias. When the whole forum votes, that bias is drowned out.
425
« on: August 04, 2011, 09:38:35 AM »
Naryar's works better. Arguing why it should be in is better than a goddamn popularity contest poll consisting of "Vote Botface X just because" entries.
Don't get me wrong, I like Naryar's idea in principle. However, the problem is that people will vote, and give their reasoning. People like Clickbeetle will probably give a detailed explanation, others might give a line or two. How do we know who has given a detailed enough vote? Do we throw out their vote? Force them to redo it? All I see happening is the voter turnout being reduced, and thus the results less representative. Also, you claim that people, "Vote[ed] Botface X just because." Honestly, the vast majority of the inductees aren't just random bots, they are genuinely important or famous bots of RA2.
426
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:04:10 PM »
Or maybe we should each, rather than vote via a poll, post a detailed list of the bots we would see the more in this, and reasons why we think they are legendary. Sure it's moar work, but the hall of fame should be more precise and fair rather than influenced by some random n00b who sees this thread and votes for a random bot.
I'd much rather have 52 voters on a poll than 5-10 detailed votes (which were pretty much what the nomination PMs were for). The more people who vote, the more representative the Hall of Fame will be of our communities's thoughts. I do plan to expand the Hall with subsequent nominations, so bots that people think should have gotten in will get a chance to get in.
427
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:48:55 AM »
I'm not being personal. I'm just saying that you are the sole reason this RA2 hall of fame thing shouldn't ever be acknowledged because you turned it into a glorified BOTM.
Would you please be more specific about what bots you are unsatisfied with? I think many of the bots are deserving because they are famous, hence they should be in a Hall of FAME.
428
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:46:09 AM »
So far Urjak is the only one with a flawless record 9-0 will be interesting so see how it handles R0B0 now.. Fire Ant is quite wide and flat...
Thanks Joeblo, now I know that my perfect record is also going to get killed by R0B0... :P
429
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:05:08 AM »
You are a worthy opponent Somebody, but I have defeated you. I look forward to facing you again in CC5. In other news, R0B0 is going to kill me.
430
« on: August 02, 2011, 07:38:56 PM »
I have to agree with System32 here. I thought I was the ONLY ONE who thought snsnsnsns was a piece of crap.
It wasn't a piece of crap, but SnSnSnSnS was not very important in bot building history.
431
« on: August 02, 2011, 04:30:40 PM »
The wiki has been updated with the final results.
432
« on: August 01, 2011, 12:30:01 PM »
Inductees are:
1st: EMERGENCY
2nd: Spinner from the West
3rd (tie): Neglected Waterbug
4th (tie): Absolute Chaos
5th: Mako
6th: E-Rupt
7th: Hammer of Justice
8th: Insult to Injury V
9th: Project Trinity
10th: Rabid Pit Bull
433
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:50:08 AM »
This is the last day to get votes in, assuming anyone's left who hasn't voted.
434
« on: July 29, 2011, 06:37:51 PM »
The comment was directed towards GoldenFox, referencing a point I had brought up in the past. It was not directed toward the others.
435
« on: July 29, 2011, 06:29:56 PM »
Once again, the people complaining about GTM are those who spend practically all their time in the Chatterbox section and don't contribute much at all.
436
« on: July 27, 2011, 11:44:11 PM »
EDIT: Anyone wanna buy my deviantART?
(Image removed from quote.)
You think you have 2,000,000 visitors daily?
437
« on: July 26, 2011, 05:06:18 PM »
Luckiest Robot: Garvin
Unluckiest Robot: NFX
SFTW: Hyrdro
Best Robot: Octo... Apollo
Coolest Robot: Scrap Daddy
Most Surprising Moment: NFX losing to Garvin
I left a few awards out because I couldn't really think of a good vote.
438
« on: July 26, 2011, 12:55:37 PM »
Match against Freezies was tense, but in the end I was confident. Match against Mike went exactly as I expected, knocking off those wheels.
439
« on: July 25, 2011, 11:03:21 PM »
I don't know if 2x 40 is really better than 4x 20.
I figured that losing one half of my weaponry would be about as bad as losing half my weaponry and drive, except with 100 more HP to make it less likely.
440
« on: July 25, 2011, 03:45:27 PM »
We need to make universal rules so that everything has a structure & Not have 1 tourney accept 7 blacks stacked but some other dude thinks 5 is too much so he only allows 4 in his tourney.
Wait, why can't we have this? People would just read the rules of the tournament and follow them accordingly.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ... 144
|
Show Posts