 | | Re: Rule check —Calum Tsang
|
| | | (...) I forgot to put it in before, but in previous events, if two towers touched each other, that was acceptable. They still counted as two separate towers. Scoring applies as per normal, the rules page has been updated. Thanks Wayne and RobA for (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Rule check —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | I know I'm getting incredibly picky now, but if my bot had a stack hopper that was 1x2 blocks, the following two scenarios could result (URL) So by the current scoring rules, (1) would count as two 4 block towers even though they touch, but what (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —David Koudys
|
| | | | (...) Two block tower and a four block tower. At least, that's the way I see it... More importantly, the current scoring really doesn't give me a reason to sort--the +1 for each right block doesn't come close to justifying the effort to sort when (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —Wayne Young
|
| | | | (...) So a valid strategy would be to pile up a heap of blocks and let the humans figure out what the stacks are? Add in some random driving around to knock down opponent stacks, and you know what, that could be entertaining! BTW, I agree there is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | (...) Little incentive? That's still overstating the importance of sorting. But, I hate to repeat myself... (URL) So a valid strategy would be to pile up a heap of blocks and let the humans (...) That sounds like a Chris plan. It's not hard to count (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —Chris Magno
|
| | | | (...) I agree. thats how we would have scored that scenario. (...) in theory YES. but what we found is that most people program the robots to "hoard" blocks for 2 min 30 seconds, then deploy the stack at the last min. thus protecting the stack from (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | (...) OK, coming in late on this (and, I should add, being unable to currently stack up any blocks even *by hand* in my house due to a 9-month-old), you want to... ...encourage stacking but discourage piling... ...encourage some sorting... (...) How (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Rule check —Calum Tsang
|
| | | | | | (...) That's ALWAYS been the case: Only blocks in the stack. What do you mean by robot emplaced platform? Calum (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Rule check —Brian Davis
|
| | | | | | (...) What I ment was to patch another hole before it forms: with scoring based only on total height above the floor, one spoiler strategy would be a single block on the end of a high pole (or platform). The tower would consist of one block but (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Rule check —Calum Tsang
|
| | | | | | (...) a) I'm not too concerned except all but the biggest holes, which usually are my fault. The rest I leave as an intellectual exercise for Steve Hassenplug's ego. :) b) "Capping" towers has been extensively discussed a few years ago. The general (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Rule check —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | (...) I don't think we need to worry about spirit of the game here at all. I think trying to generate a pile of blocks would be very difficult. If someone can do it, let them. Additionally the blocks need to be stacked. Blocks piled in random (...) (20 years ago, 11-Nov-04, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
