Subject:
|
Re: Onwards to rtlToronto18...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 00:38:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
609 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> > > -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.
>
> 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
Here are my thought ins no apparent order and to answer many questions and ideas
already posted in this thread...
I am the first to talk about building monstrous robots. As that pic that Calum
posted, I can build 'em big. Big is easy. Big doesn't challenge you as much as
building compact to accomplish the same task. I do like the big 'bots, but
we've already had 3 block stacking competitions with the 'big' (and I hope we
have more in the future...)
Wait a minute...
I have an idea...
We have an 8x8 arena.
We have a 4x4 arena.
If we want an 'easy' and a 'hard' competition, one is big 'bots in the big arena
and one is small 'bots in the small arena doing exactly the same thing--stacking
blocks. I even suggest that the big 'bots and the big arena get the big blocks
(4x4) and the small 'bots in the small arena get the small blocks (2x2)
I'm not totally hung up on the block sorting but I thought it would add a layer
of complexity since we have done 3 block stacking events in the past--this would
just add one more thing for the 'bot to do. I like the idea but am not firmly
attached to it.
More than that--multi RCX. I think that's fine. If people only have one RCX,
that's sad but let it be known that our first block stacking competitions were
all done with 1 RCX--it can be done if you're up to the challenge.
What else was there...
Scoring--the Fabrini sequence is just fine. If we do block sorting as well, I'm
a little more harsh than Derek--like the rulz yesterday--if any part of the 'bot
is over the edge (including the 'exhaust pipe' *cough* Calum *cough*, it
disqualifies the 'bot. If there is a wrong colour in the stack, the stack
doesn't count. Now if the tower gets knocked and the the 'offending block'
falls off but the rest of the tower is still standing, then that's okay. But
again, not attached to theis rule and I'll go with what the consensus turns out
to be.
Here's an additional thought on this--what if your 'bot makes a tower with the
bottom few blocks being your opponent's colour? K, scratch my thought above--we
do Derek's way--add up from bottom to the wrong colour--that way if your 'bot
puts the wrong blocks at the bottom, it counts towards the other guy.
Blocks of each--probably like 'back yard'--20 and 20. When we did original
block stacking, it was 40 total. Think that's fine.
More thoughts, comments?
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
