| |
Chris Magno wrote:
> as for the idea of a "pile of blocks"...
> it'd be hard to make a ~simple~ rule that would
> cover this. (with out limiting the creativity)
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...
> judge a stack based on neatness?
How about judge a stack based on maximum height (NOT number of blocks), where
the only thing that can be in the stack are standard blocks (no robot-emplaced
platforms, for instance). As for sorting, make any "poisoned" column worth half
the points (or even divide that towers score by half for each poisoned block).
Continue using a series approach to assign points.
Now, a pile is far more worthwile split up into more neat towers. And sorting
is rewarded, but (depending on how you chose it) not required.
If you *really* want to prevent a "hoard & dump" strategy, make early towers
count for more (towers built during the first mminute are worth twice those
built in the second minute, etc.)
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) 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)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
