Subject:
|
Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:01:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
529 times
|
| |
|
|
Calum Tsang wrote:
> 8x8' Playfield, though 4x4' is also possible. Cubes are miniaturized "blocks",
> 2x2x5-plate cubes in white and black. A large number of these are scattered
> around the playfield, two robots must collect and process them to build
> freestanding stacks. Your start colour is the colour you must build your stack
> with. Robots are 8" cubed, just like the successful mini marble sorting event
> at rtlToronto15 that DaveK ran.
I'm all in for this contest.
> Some points undecided:
>
> -Processors and types allowed (ie, one RCX, multi RCX, any intelligent brick)
I thing the 8" cube limit puts a reasonable limit on this. Can't fit
too many RCXs in a 8" cube and still be able to manipulate blocks.
> -Does the stack need to be in your home square
I think adds a little too much complexity.
> -Cost of a poisonous block (ie, is a "bad" block a high negative point)
I'm not a fan of the block sorting aspect, but I'll do it. At the very
least the height of you tower should be capped by the bad block. So if
you have a 6 block tower but the 4th block is the wrong colour, then
your tower only counts as 3 blocks. Counting from the bottom.
> Other issues to consider:
>
> -Other games people might want to do that are tough? I'm not ruling out Duck
> Assemblers yet, but I think only Iain and I like that idea. I've also heard
> Full Out Autonomous Robot Destruction (I wonder who suggested that?)...now's
> your time to propose and pitch your idea.
Not really interested in either of those.
> -Step-up difficulty of this contest for new members. If you notice, the
> entrants in rtlToronto17 yesterday were almost ALL newcomers, all eager to
> participate. I'm not saying we should resort to sumo, but we probably should
> consider something that also engages entry level competitors (of which I feel I
> am part of)
>
> -Two-class approach: Example would be, entry-class just need to build a stack,
> competitor class needs to build a stack of your own colour inside home square.
I like this idea. Or instead of building towers we could do a
collection game as the easier game. Lots of possible games with the
same playfield and blocks.
Derek
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| We don't need no stink'n limits. Maybe if we were going 4x4, but we're not. And, can anyone recall a time that a robot was too big or had too many processors. Limits (without an obvious purpose) ar exactly that...limiting. (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| (...) I think that's a pretty good way of putting it. The other thing we need to talk about is the worth of a tower. Do we use the Fibonacci-based sequence for tower height? How many blocks of each colour? Calum (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
| Well, yesterday, strangely enough, was a lot of fun: A simple contest, with a lot of entries (ten!), most of which worked. And I even entered a working robot that actually was somewhat successful. Congratulations to Greg Hyland and Rob Antonishen, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
