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 - MikeNCR
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 58
1
« on: August 29, 2016, 12:49:00 PM »
my problem with this judging system is, if your weapon breaks you may as well stop trying. at least that's basically what it looks like based on what we've seen.
2
« on: August 29, 2016, 12:49:38 AM »
-Only your Primary Weapon counts for this(so Disk-o's lifter isn't a weapon to them)
This is wrong. Aggression is scored based upon attacks with an active weapon, primary or not. In the case of the Disk-o fight, DoI only used it's lifter 4 times, with, from what I recall, two of those resulting in Chomp ending up on its side. DoI spent most of the fight using the lifter as a large shield. 7.6 Judges’ Determination of Match Winner
Certain criteria and methods are used by the Judges to decide a Match winner in the event a winner is not determined during the course of a Match (i.e., neither Robot is Incapacitated, Knocked Out, Disqualified, etc. during the duration of the Match).
7.6.1 Judging Criteria
The judging criteria uses four factors, each which is assigned a point value, as follows:
Aggression – 2 Points
Aggression is judged by the frequency, severity, boldness and effectiveness of attacks deliberately initiated by a Robot against its opponent using its powered weapon(s). If a Robot appears to have
accidentally attacked an opponent, that act will not be considered Aggression. Consideration is also given if the attacking Robot is risking serious damage on each attack. Attacking with a wedge or other passive armor is considered to be a defensive action and does not count toward Aggression. Continuous attacks without using a powered weapon can reduce a Robot’s
Aggression score.
Control – 1 Point
Control means a Robot is able to attack an opponent at its weakest point, use its weapons in the most effective way, avoid Arena Hazards, and minimize the damage caused by the opponent or its weapons.
Damage – 1 Point
Through deliberate action, a Robot either directly, or indirectly using the Arena Hazards, reduces the functionality, effectiveness or defensibility of an opponent. Damage is not considered relevant if a Robot
inadvertently harms itself. Also, if a pressure vessel or a rapidly spinning device on a Robot fragments, any damage to the opponent will not be considered "deliberate".
Strategy – 1 Point
The Robot exhibits a combat plan that exploits the Robot's strengths against the weaknesses of its opponent. Strategy is also defined as a Robot exhibiting a deliberate defense plan that guards its weaknesses against the strengths of the opponent. Strategy can also involve using the Arena Hazards to gain an advantage.
One thing that I keep seeing is people saying that a bot won a fight, but that the fight should have been a split decision, which makes no sense to me with how the fights are scored. Each judge awards 2 aggression points, 1 control point, 1 damage point, and 1 strategy point. If a bot clearly wins by a narrow margin (say by getting both aggression points and damage, while their opponent clearly took control and strategy) then you'd have each judge scoring the fight 3-2 for the bot that won damage and aggression. A split decision should only occur in the closest of close fights where it's genuinely up for debate as to which bot won instead of a situation where a bot clearly won, but by a small margin. Having fought under the judging criteria used for Season 2 I think it works fairly well. In one of the Inside The Bot podcasts Greg mentions that they may change aggression into "active weapon use" to make it more clear that the category is specifically measuring how well a robot brings its weapon(s) to bear in the arena. The redefinition on its own may fix a lot of the "odd" fights this season as it will be much easier for people that aren't intimately familiar with the rules to "get" how the fights are judged and the builders will have a much firmer grasp of what needs to be done to win if a fight goes to the judges.
3
« on: April 07, 2016, 08:10:18 PM »
4
« on: March 02, 2016, 09:05:31 PM »
Sweet! Can you give us the complete roster of who Chaos Corps is exactly?
We'll be doing a series of meet the team posts on the Facebook page in the coming weeks. There are 10 of us, so it's probably the cleanest way to introduce everyone.
5
« on: March 02, 2016, 08:19:17 PM »
You may have noticed I've been a bit quiet lately. That's because Near Chaos Robotics has joined up with several other southeastern builders to form a team that will be competing at BattleBots Season 2. https://www.facebook.com/ChaosCorps/
6
« on: December 24, 2015, 08:20:55 AM »
7
« on: November 04, 2015, 07:39:41 AM »
I have the approvals in place from my school. I'm building a robot for my college senior project, and I have the money saved up to do it. I am unbelievably hyped. Building a 30lber for Motorama 2016 is the goal, going to mail off my registration tomorrow since the signups are opened I have noticed. 7 people already signed up on a 16 bot bracket 
The 30lb class is not capped at 16 robots.
8
« on: October 09, 2015, 03:01:41 PM »
Make it wider though, and its illegal
Yes.
9
« on: October 09, 2015, 02:57:57 PM »
If you'd spent less time complaining and more time talking to people like a civilized adult you'd have found out that this configuration is considered 100% legal for the Sportsman class a good while ago- 
10
« on: October 09, 2015, 02:27:59 PM »
You essentially asked if this with a hammer on top would be Sportsman legal:  Instead of asking about alternatives that could meet your goals or trying to come up with something that would work as intended and be legal you chose to complain about the injustice of not being allowed to mount a wedge to your Sportsman class bot.
11
« on: October 09, 2015, 01:44:32 PM »
You asked, we gave you an answer, we are sorry that we have not met your expectations.
Next time, don't describe your attachment as an "anti-wedge skirt" with this as the only drawing.
Yes I know, you keep bringing up a basic image I used because the person I was talking to did not understand the basics of the design I was talking about, this was after several iterations and workarounds of virtually exactly what uberclocker has, except to stabilize the hammer instead of forks (though his are apparently allowed because his forks extend farther than the supports)
can you explain how this:
who very obviously has surfaces on the front and rear that will not be a 90 degree angle to the floor an inch from the floor when in its normal orientation satisfies the below rule:
"Sides of a bot within 1 inch of the floor must be perpendicular to the floor. If your bot can drive in multiple positions (i.e. inverted), your bot must comply in each of these positions. Unusually shaped bots that do not meet the letter of this rule, but that do not contain wedge-like surfaces may be allowed on a case by case basis.
You must also use care when designing your weapon so that the weapon does not violate the no wedge rule. A weapon which requires a small slope below 1 inch or a small plate that is flat to the floor in order to function will be allowed at the discretion of the officials. "
It appears that neither end adheres to these rules
The front could very easily extend another few fractions of an inch forward within 1" of the floor and not be an angled surface, the small slope is not /required/ as stated.
The rear very much appears to sit less than an inch from the floor, has an included surface, and a spike which is not part of an active weapon and is also an inclined surface, both of these could /easily/ comply, and are there for no "not wedging" functional purpose, but chose not to, you dont have to fret over the rules and say "oh jeeze I wish I could angle this surface because it would save me an ounce but I can't" You can just not follow the rules and its fine.
That is my annoyance
You take the rules verbatim, and apply them to bots who exist or will exist, and they do not adhere to those rules
You have you, someone who publicly is a sh**bag about it (though it keeps getting deleted from the facebook group and I didnt have the foresight to take screenshots) whom also exploits said rules, /and/ has a say in deciding what is legal and what isn't, including technically legal defenses to their own robots.
It stinks of old boys club elitist nonsense IMO.
At resting position the spike is nowhere near ground level and is primarily decorative. The front pieces are functionally incapable of wedging and serve only to keep the flails from impacting the floor. You asked to put what is effectively a wedge on a Sportsman bot and threw a fit when you got told no. You're more than welcome to add your anti-wedge skirt and fight it in the regular 30lb class.
12
« on: October 09, 2015, 01:13:40 PM »
You asked, we gave you an answer, we are sorry that we have not met your expectations. Next time, don't describe your attachment as an "anti-wedge skirt" with this as the only drawing. 
14
« on: August 23, 2015, 03:50:28 PM »
One of the bigger things is putting a defined final bot list on the main pack so it doesn't become a perpetual development cycle.
15
« on: August 10, 2015, 04:23:27 PM »
I've noticed that, just my hammer arm was like $150 to do which I was expecting, but having a ton of frame members cut out of 3/8" was ~130 or somesuch, which is cheap!
it seems like if you stay below 1/2" the price is pretty manageable.
A huge, huge part of the initial waterjet cost is the setup which is why both parts ended up being about the same price. The big trick with waterjetting is to make as many parts as you can out of the same material and thickness so you're only paying the setup portion of the cost once for all of the parts instead of once per part.
16
« on: August 01, 2015, 07:47:52 PM »
I'd call Tetanus and Triggo effectively the same bot. Amusingly enough, they're currently ranked 1st and 2nd on SPARC's Botrank mirror.
17
« on: July 27, 2015, 07:04:51 PM »
Yeah, but you've already made those, you're not constructing one between fights that'll only work against one specific robot that you just so happen to be fighting next.
So long as it passes inspection, there's functionally no difference. Each one of those attachments have bots they're meant for on Nyx.
18
« on: July 27, 2015, 07:00:03 PM »
 Modular weapons can work well, but it takes a good bit of effort.
20
« on: July 07, 2015, 04:47:33 PM »
Okay, Overhaul is capable of self-righting. The late hit did prevent that. What difference would it make if they were back on their wheels after the match had ended? Would the late hit suddenly be less wrong because overhaul would be able to return the favor? I don't understand that logic.
It made it look like Overhaul couldn't self right and would have lost if the match lasted longer, which I feel like had a big boost for Lockjaw in the judges decision as Overhaul had pretty much controlled the fight up until that point.
While that is a fair point, something happening after a match should not affect their decision of the match.
While true, it's very difficult for people to completely ignore something they've just seen and the late hit likely did to at least some extent influence the scoring. Not a knock against the judges, mind you, that's more of a "how the human brain works" issue. The last 15 seconds of a match tends to influence scores to a far greater extent than the first 15 seconds. Just so happened most of the last 15 seconds continued past the buzzer.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 58
|
Show Posts
