 | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Chris Magno
|
| | | (...) ok you lost me now. IF your shoe box has a lid and a HOLE in the WALL (HITW) then why are we arguing??? you just described my rule set of a closed hopper with a HITW. ????? (confused) (...) using daves original idea, a shoe box is a VERY GOOD (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | (...) Boy - I've been standing here ignoring this and hoping for a decision on a game, but feel I have to jump in here. I completely disagree that the rings were an end-run around the game rules. They were about the BEST interpretation of the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Greg Hyland
|
| | | | | (...) Except this is a Mindstroms robots group. I want to see Mindstroms robots being used. Not just a LEGO contraption. It's like what Chris said in another post here, I want to see robot enteries and LEARN something from them. RCX robots are neat. (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Greg - I agree completely! My point was not that we should endorse loophole entries or trivial entries, but encourage contests that lend them to an RCX solution. I also liked Dave's bot the best. It was well designed and exceptionally cool to (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Chris Magno
|
| | | | | | (...) thank you greg. well said. and a very good point. sadly, we will forever have to struggle with where a line is between allowing non rcx bots and rcx based bots. why was robs monkey bot OK? why was my beam robot ok? why was a ring robot not? (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Greg Hyland
|
| | | | | | (...) And this system has worked amazingly well for 19 competitions. But it's for this reason you probably won't see me around on Feb. 11th. And as I've felt for quite a while, our oppinion, in the end, doesn't count. They "TRY" (in captial letters) (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Chris Magno
|
| | | | (...) i never said it was an end run... i said that i LEARNED nothing. huge differance. i got to take home Daves robot to "study" it. i picked up a few neat ideas. i memorized the ring robot design, and moved on. ROB, for me. its about the LEARNING. (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Greg Hyland
|
| | | | | (...) Expet if we add my idea that you DON'T want any block in your box. Sitting still would be BAD. Run away! Then Derek's "blast a lot of bricks into the air" idea could work... leading to LUCK winning or losing the game (however I like that idea, (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | to recap-- was Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> So the ruleset up to now--create an autonomous robot that will exchange blocks with other autonomous robots. The specifics are that the container to hold blocks on your robot has to (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: to recap-- was Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Derek Raycraft
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't really like this. I think the opening should be much more constrained, like Chris was talking about. X blocks high Y studs wide. No variation allowed. It's going to be hard to tell if you found a hole, or are stuck between two other (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Rob Antonishen
|
| | | | (...) Then, grasshopper - if you learned nothing I am saddened, Is a competitive contest there are two ways to "win": 1) to succeed by completing the objective. 2) to cause the opponent to fail, thus win by default. This is why the "trivial case" (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Comments from a laundromat ... —Chris Magno
|
| | | | Rob Antonishen wrote: > On 9/27/05, Chris Magno wrote: > snipping rob being patronizing. Maybe adding a standing rule that all entries > have to run once on their own in a "qualifying" round to compete. > now this idea has some merit !!!! THIS rule (...) (19 years ago, 27-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| | | | |
