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 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ... 144
621
« on: June 08, 2011, 11:16:38 PM »
- IIRC, all BBEANS participants up until BBEANS 6 had to pass a controlled movement test in which Clickbeetle would manouever the robot himself manually through the test garage. Any robots that failed this test would not be permitted in BBEANS in order to limit bots from skimping on critical components (like drive) in favour of massive weaponry. This rule was implemented because building close-to-immobile weapon walls IS EXPLOITING THE LIMITS OF THE AI IN RA2. Because the AI is simply not smart enough to stop attacking when a robot is stuck or immobile before the immobility counter starts, there is nothing to prevent a bot from reckless suicide attacks, thus simultaneously killing itself and keeping its opponent mobile. Because of this rule, 1WD robots have been formally banned from tourneys in the past. There is a precedent in place for "killing off" this one particular design.
- I hear the "but it exists IRL" argument for questionable designs far too often, but let's accept the "existing in real life" argument as the foundation of the realistic rule for a minute. Logically then, designs that do NOT exist IRL should be outlawed because they violate the realistic rule on the grounds of not existing. If we are to follow this path, then we should ban every single type of gut-ripper ever concieved as well as the use of burst wedges, door hinge wedges, razor tips, burst-enhanced weapon motors, chained motors and all building glitches, including bursted/spinning weapons passing through any external or internal component. If we're worried about killing off designs, I really suggest we don't go here.
- For the record, one-wheeled melty brain-controlled flail shell spiners don't exist in real life anyways. So why are we using the "they exist!" argument at all? It doesn't defend them. Actually, if we follow the logic I outlined above, they should be outright banned anyways.
In conclusion, no matter how you look at it, we can't defend the existence of melty brain shell spinners in RA2. They're unrealistic on two levels: 1) the advantage that melty brain on a FSS gives is unrealistic in the sense that there would be no such advantage in real life. Human drivers are smarter, and could simply avoid until the correct time and wait for an opening to attack. Also, 1WD FSS can't be piloted by humans. I know that even today's IRL melty brains can be driven manually, so 1WD FSS are also unrealistic because they don't work! And 2) even if you take the perspective of "because melty brain exists in real life, it does not violate the realistic rule," your logic still does not justify how the controversial one-wheeled flail shell spinner is allowed since they do not exist in real life.
Unless the 1WD robot can be driven in the test garage in an identical or similar manner as it will behave under AI guidance, it should be banned.
Who cares what BBEANS did. Also, you seem to be confusing dumb AI attacking immobile objects with Melty-brain AI driven bots, which can actively seek out and attack their opponents. Honestly your stupid-AI argument can be just as easily applied to rammers, where as a smart human driver would go for the back of the rammer, the "stupid" AI attacks head on. That is just how RA2 works, it has nothing to do with the legality of 1-wheeled bots. Honestly, I would only use the "they exist in real life argument" when someone claims they are unrealistic because they cannot be found IRL. Your argument about how FSS are given an unfair advantage because "Human drivers are smarter, and could simply avoid until the correct time and wait for an opening to attack" is ridiculous. This could be applied to many other robot types, ranging from regular SS and SnS to rammers and popups. Obviously a human AI would try to outmaneuver and attack an opponents weak points. In RA2, AIs simply aren't as smart as humans. Deal with it. IRL Melty Brain bots are driven by a computer that takes signals given by the humans and transforms it into small changes in the drive speed. It is just as computerized as any AI except humans can give generalized commands to said computer. In conclusion, your use of the "stupid AI" argument is no good because it can be applied to a multitude of other bot types and simply flies in the face of how RA2 AI has always and probably will always work. Of course FSS don't exist in real life. Neither do gut rippers. When dealing with realism it is a question of "whether or not this bot could POSSIBLY be built," not whether or not it would work well.
622
« on: June 08, 2011, 10:21:10 PM »
Banned from tournaments? Why, because there good? :P I don't see why they should be banned in tournaments. Its not like they severely unbalance the game. In DSL they just allow for a few more weapons to be put on. In stock they seem to just allow one wheel HS to more easily outweapon their two wheel counterparts.
623
« on: June 08, 2011, 09:04:04 PM »
Blehhh... what a crappy match. A rather cheap loss. Ah well, what happens happens. Good luck with tournament Marty!
624
« on: June 07, 2011, 10:51:36 PM »
Nor do I care.
625
« on: June 07, 2011, 07:37:07 PM »
I tried the skirt hinge fix to see what happens and it still havoks.
and yes you did SKBT.
Alright... then disqualification seems unavoidable.
626
« on: June 07, 2011, 05:08:23 PM »
Good god. I won my match by the skin of my razors. Well fought Conraa. On the whole Jaws problem, you MIGHT be able to take a poll and see if anyone is against the skirt hinge fix. I certainly wouldn't be if it means preventing a disqualification.
627
« on: June 07, 2011, 12:40:29 AM »
This is just going to keep bothering me:  Last I checked I had won. :P
628
« on: June 06, 2011, 08:14:23 PM »
Ah crap... I got the one bot I really don't want to face.
629
« on: June 05, 2011, 08:24:01 PM »
I can't get my bots to stop doing the Nasty Pickle glitch. Is it worth it for me to send a bot anyways and hope it works better on STC's computer?
I might be able to give you some advice. Generally, try increasing chassis size and not using copal motors or piglets. Try to also avoid skirt hinges...
630
« on: June 05, 2011, 06:35:15 PM »
To be perfectly honest, this:  is far superior to that bot, because even though there is far less weaponry, the rammer above is invertible and fast. Razors are probably nicer weapons due to their higher damage (this can help when neither bot is destroyed and the match comes down to points). Invertability is a must really for any BW that can't self-right.
631
« on: June 05, 2011, 02:54:33 PM »
@Urjak Sheck Spinners are not allowed in this tourny.
I like the way you think.  Even if they were allowed though, I wouldn't have entered one. They suck at KoTH matches.
632
« on: June 05, 2011, 02:44:53 PM »
Sent also... hopefully I can nab a spot.
EDIT: I'll send an AI soon. I just wanted to make sure I got in before taking time to do the AI.
633
« on: June 04, 2011, 09:15:36 AM »
Personally I'm a fan of Pussycat. For such a simple design (yes, I consider that design simple) they did very well.
634
« on: June 03, 2011, 10:57:41 PM »
You're still planning to accept updates right 123STW?
635
« on: June 03, 2011, 09:22:33 AM »
Hmm... I'm liking that carbon fiber extender configuration that you and SM have on your klones bots. I might just steal it...
636
« on: June 02, 2011, 05:06:26 PM »
Sounds good. I feel it would give deserving bots the best chance of getting on, and also increase overall voter turnout because clicking some buttons on a poll is far less hassle than sending a PM.
Specific to this vote, I would have people vote for 10 nominees by posting on a thread or by PM. I am worried though that if I have two polls (one for the scrapped nominees and one for the actual voting) people might get confused, so I think I will simply put up all the nominees received (there shouldn't be tooooo many), and simply have people vote out of those.
As long as people have no qualms with it I will enact this plan.
I do however need some more votes. I only have one so far... T
637
« on: June 02, 2011, 09:25:02 AM »
By my understanding is you wanted 2 things improved..
1) reasons for robots to be there.. This was partially fixed by having people add explanations to the votes, but who decided if they hold up ? a single person's opinion isnt balanced enough.. The separation is a neat idea but not essential to cure the "problem"
2) some making it in while similar yet more notable robots are missing the cut (NWB example) this hasn't been addressed in any way.. the way I see it people tend to forget various robots when trying to reel a list off the top of their head, That was the basis of my nominate/ vote idea or JD's talk of campaigning or debating would also work..
You can run it anyway you like but you made this thread on the basis the system was flawed but I cant see any significant changes so im throwing in my food for thought so we dont get a "Well that didnt work" follow up topic..
Hmmm... Your second point gives me pause. I have to agree other bots may be missed out that rightfully go there... Tell you what, If I keep the 10 nominees per voter system I have, what exactly would your plan then do? Form my understanding, some (or maybe all) the nominated bots show up on a poll, then the most voted on bots there (how many? top 5? top 10?) get inducted into the Hall, and I would assume would get placed into the tournament bots and innovative bots section for easy organization. If you plan is what I think your plan is, then perhaps I was wrong to dismiss it (and people who have already voted will not be effected as long as the 10 nominees per voter requirement stands).
638
« on: June 02, 2011, 09:03:05 AM »
I figured pure ballot voting would work just as well and be simpler.
Well.. now all you have is what we already had..
Your basically restarting the list now because you don't agree with the placement of some..
I mean no offense but your really not improving the system much.. you just going to get the same results split into 2..
Okay... First off I had no problem with current Hall of Fame. I did however agree that it could be more compact, and that the original 25 nominees was to blame. The honorable mentions list was rather large and didn't add much (both my opinion and that of other members), so I decided to do away with it. R0B0 recommend I split up the Hall into notable tournament bots and innovative bots, and so I did. Heck, honestly the only thing I didn't do was what you proposed. Really the only thing people seemed to not like about the current Hall of Fame was that it was too large, and the honorable mentions category was kind of a waste.
639
« on: June 01, 2011, 09:23:36 PM »
Soooooo... can we campaign certain bots? or would that be considered tacky? Maybe start a thread for people to make HOF suggestions? Might be kinda fun for lively debate and I don't really see why people need to write up why they are nominating a bot when majority vote is going to rule over reason anyways.
I guess I got confused... I thought the nominations were going to put the bots into a master list for voting or something. My Bad.
Joeblo did propose that, but I decided against it. I figured pure ballot voting would work just as well and be simpler. I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to campaign for certain bots. I certainly wouldn't mind...
640
« on: June 01, 2011, 06:29:03 PM »
wait what?
I was running a second one, and like 2 people voted...
I was planning to bring it back soon too...
*sighs*
I am sorry if you feel like I am throwing away the work you did, for that was not my intent. The truly Hall of Fame worthy robots will be voted back in anyway. As for the surge in popularity, your guess is as good as mine. Voting is now open and will cease July 1st. Opinions on deadline are welcome. Members are to send me a PM with their 10 nominees ( this includes both notable tournament bots and innovative or otherwise impressive robots) along with a short explanation for the nomination of each bot. You can send less than 10 if you want. Bots present in 50% or more of the votes will be inducted into the RA2 Bot Hall of Fame.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ... 144
|
Show Posts