| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Brian Davis wrote:
> Calum Tsang wrote:
>
> > > 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).
> >
> > That's ALWAYS been the case: Only blocks in the stack.
> > What do you mean by robot emplaced platform?
>
> 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 might be much taller than other (even multi-block) towers.
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
consensus IIRC was that it was difficult enough that if someone could do it,
more power to them, they would get the entire worth of the tower. A robot that
could harvest capping blocks, capture, cap, stabilize and release an opponent
tower succesfully is pretty difficult.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rule check
|
| (...) 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)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
