 | | Re: I think we shoudl try this sometime...
|
|
(...) I have that maze that I made for BF a couple of years ago. It has adjustable walls. This allows for a practice period followed by a change in maze geometry for the actual competition. Thus people cannot "preprogram" the winning route. I am not (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
Rob Antonishen wrote: > On 9/27/05, Chris Magno wrote: > snipping rob being patronizing. Maybe adding a standing rule that all entries > have to run once on their own in a "qualifying" round to compete. > now this idea has some merit !!!! THIS rule (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | I think we shoudl try this sometime...
|
|
Along with great suggestions from Greg... I have one, taken from this post-- (URL) its a Hassenplug plug ;) ) find the video on this page-- (URL) check out that maze thing--it's line following but your 'bot has to learn each time it goes thru the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: to recap-- was Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> (...) I think the main goal is to make the competition challenging enough. I missed out on rice grabbers, but that was pretty challenging. I think if we leave it with moving 'dump trucks' a (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: to recap-- was Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
(...) full of open top autonomous stationarty BOX's!!!! (...) around the entire perimeter, and just have technic beams every 5 inches around the perimeter. That follows the rules, but is more like the 'open top' concept, except now I have 'open (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
(...) Then, grasshopper - if you learned nothing I am saddened, Is a competitive contest there are two ways to "win": 1) to succeed by completing the objective. 2) to cause the opponent to fail, thus win by default. This is why the "trivial case" (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
(...) Greg - I agree completely! My point was not that we should endorse loophole entries or trivial entries, but encourage contests that lend them to an RCX solution. I also liked Dave's bot the best. It was well designed and exceptionally cool to (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
(...) Expet if we add my idea that you DON'T want any block in your box. Sitting still would be BAD. Run away! Then Derek's "blast a lot of bricks into the air" idea could work... leading to LUCK winning or losing the game (however I like that idea, (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
(...) thank you greg. well said. and a very good point. sadly, we will forever have to struggle with where a line is between allowing non rcx bots and rcx based bots. why was robs monkey bot OK? why was my beam robot ok? why was a ring robot not? (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | to recap-- was Re: Comments from a laundromat ...
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> So the ruleset up to now--create an autonomous robot that will exchange blocks with other autonomous robots. The specifics are that the container to hold blocks on your robot has to (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
