Posted by: Hoppin« on: July 27, 2018, 07:45:26 AM »my problem with this idea is, what's stopping someone from designing a dedicated counter to the current belt holder in order to simply take over the belt without a fight? i imagine the title system would eventually devolve into mass counterpicking. Well. The belt holder wouldnt have to enter the same bot as we're more leaning towards the builder being the belt holder and not the bot Posted by: Badnik96« on: July 27, 2018, 06:57:26 AM »my problem with this idea is, what's stopping someone from designing a dedicated counter to the current belt holder in order to simply take over the belt without a fight? i imagine the title system would eventually devolve into mass counterpicking.
i like the idea besides that, i'm just worried about this. Posted by: Hoppin« on: July 18, 2018, 05:26:45 AM »would have voted yes if it wasnt for irl I hope some of the people who support this system participate. A lack of participation will feed off of itself, remember the last reformation? We hope with the introduction of IRL it'll be increasing popularity of the challenge and hopefully see some use out of it. Also, if you did vote "no" please, notify us why. We'd love to hear why and expand on our points to answer your concerns or re-think our solution. Posted by: Dreamcast« on: July 16, 2018, 02:46:34 PM »I hope some of the people who support this system participate. A lack of participation will feed off of itself, remember the last reformation?
Posted by: playzooki« on: July 16, 2018, 02:41:56 PM »would have voted yes if it wasnt for irl
Posted by: superbomb122« on: July 15, 2018, 05:07:30 PM »I suggest the original BattleBots weight classes. (LW, MW, HW, SHW)
Posted by: Hoppin« on: July 15, 2018, 05:00:29 PM »It's a good idea. But I disagree with the part where only HW is allowed. I will like if all weight classes are represented, because this will add a bit more variety with bots in different weight classes Like said in the post, there is a possibility that we could set up a rotation of weightclasses per month. With that in mind, what weightclasses would be a good idea to include, I doubt it'd be a good idea to include Antweight and Beetleweight as no one really builds for them, but what about Superheavyweight? Posted by: Billy5545« on: July 14, 2018, 06:07:01 PM »It's a good idea. But I disagree with the part where only HW is allowed. I will like if all weight classes are represented, because this will add a bit more variety with bots in different weight classes
Posted by: Hoppin« on: July 14, 2018, 04:16:20 PM »Idea for the challenge belt: Actually get a dedicated host for it. I do not intend to keep hosting it in perpetuity, I was hoping to just be a stopgap while a better solution/permanent host was found. This is definite a good addition to the previously mentioned, it'll keep what can get accepted and won't consistant. However, you'd need to account for accessibility for the hosts themselves. It's a tad confusing but I think it sounds like an improvement! To sum it up in it's simplest form, the previous title system, but simplified to 4 metas only. Posted by: kix« on: July 14, 2018, 03:15:50 PM »Better than current sh**hole we have
Posted by: TheOrcCorp« on: July 14, 2018, 01:43:40 PM »It's a tad confusing but I think it sounds like an improvement!
Posted by: Badger« on: July 14, 2018, 01:27:51 PM »Idea for the challenge belt: Actually get a dedicated host for it. I do not intend to keep hosting it in perpetuity, I was hoping to just be a stopgap while a better solution/permanent host was found.
Posted by: Hoppin« on: July 14, 2018, 11:25:11 AM »Hi all, decided to share the ideas we've had for the challenge board, these have been discuss in the Orc's Wars discord and the GTM discord. Now for those who haven't seen it, here was the initial plan I had.
The challenge board could be reverted into the old title system, to prevent large amounts of different titles being everywhere, I suggest it being HW only and split into 4 metas, DSL-S, IF, Stock and DSL-IRL. These work as a king of the hill esque infinite tourney, we can implement leaderboards into this either per user, or per bot, in how many victories they've had etc. This led to mentions of giving "Legendary" status to some users or bots, if they've met the required number of wins. Due to the mention of IRL, I'm sure you all have questions of the legitimacy of creating this sub section to the challenge board. We've come up with a few solutions to this, a. Imposing disclaimers that, "Your bot may have been accepted before, but due to the subjectivity of the meta, it can be rejected at any point", we chose this over a rule set as we felt that it'd be difficult to convert IRL builders to this mindset and overall counter intuitive to the meta. Following this, Orc had an idea to have an almost co-host to the challenge that would allow several opinions to be made, providing a fair evaluation on the bot, this is most likely to be notible builders. Finally, an arguement can be made that people will "tryhard" to win, but given that isn't what the meta is I feel that users aren't going to be making these poor tryhard bots with that intention. Following this, there was an idea presented by geese, instead to have the each meta become the same weightclass, but it cycles every month, this would remove the possibility of having "Legendary bot" status. A variation focus on the bot more compared to the builder was prototyped by Gulden, here's that. This makes it so that it's a display on the bots itself, rather than the builders, this could also work for the rotational weightclass as it would just be the bot that won the previous challenge in that weightclass. However, this could create issues to do with too many titles that would be floating around the forums associated with the challenge belt. |