Subject:
|
Re: [rtlToronto] rtlToronto20 Draft Rules Posted
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Nov 2005 07:15:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
743 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> As you can see, in the above situation, the system works. This solution
> is within my skill set. But, just like every other rtlToronto game, I
> would like to see as few rules, and standardizations as possible.
There's a difference with this game, which is that people must cooperate. In
games that require cooperation, standards must be made. For example, when we
ran Connect Four, we had to define turn-passing, board interfaces and other such
requirements for each entrant to work towards.
Do you remember the guy who showed up with the WRONG model of Connect Four
board? He sat in a corner looking like a moron and couldn't play a game with
anyone.* Hence, we have standards.
* which is about all mine and most others could do, but...
> So. In my opinion, I fully agree with standardizing a physical beacon
> location; and suggesting that "on" for waiting, and "off" for motion
> is a good suggestion. I DONT think we should disallow a robot for not
> following that blinking pattern.
>
> It might make the most sense to follow the "guideline" of on/off, but it
> should not be the kind of thing were we disallow a robot.
My issue is that such a baseline exists to define what a basic robot can work
with.
> We have only 4 people so far to commit to building a robot. (of which ,
> so far, you are not on that list) So finding ways to get rid of
> entries is counter productive.
We haven't eliminated any entries. In fact, jumping to such a conclusion is
counter productive. At this point we're trying to define the contest. So if
you decided to bound along ahead of time with a strategy before the contest
rules were finalized, you'd be stupid.
The fact I haven't opted to play doesn't mean I don't have an interest or
responsibility in defining the game. In fact, many games which I can't build
something towards I've had the role in building rulesets. If you don't want my
participation, then say it outright, I'll remove the ruleset now and let you run
it. I have no interest in debating a ruleset where my input is not wanted.
> You are correct, that we have not provisioned for autonomous stopping.
> But I would like to keep to the spirit of the original rtlTronto games
> and not stifle creativity with rules and design criteria, and allow the
> builders to find a way to transfer blocks on there own. Derek claims he
> can implement a transfer while in motion. Rob, might be able to mount
> his gun block transfer to a turret.
Right but we need to make a ruleset which can define a basic level of play. In
every rtlToronto game, there's an obvious approach to making a basic entry.
Example, in sumo, you build a robot with two motors and you turn then on. You
can be creative and build a gear train or a bot flipper or something more
creative, but at the very lowest level, all you need is two motors.
In this rule interpretation, you're making the assumption EVERYONE can transfer
a block while in motion. Not everyone can. So to not define the indication of
a stopped robot, means you've required everyone to attain this level to begin
playing. That's not a good ruleset.
The earliest incarnation of this contest defined almost nothing, which was my
greatest objection to the event--you can't start a contest and leave everything
up to chance.
> I am sorry Calum, this is not an example of "social experiment."
Review my post to Derek, then revisit. This is EXACTLY what you proposed.
Effectively what you suggested was not to define anything, but to have people
post how they would do it. Don't define a stopping mechanism, someone will post
what they will do and others will latch on.
Except if no one reads EVERY GODDAMNED POST, then you have anarchy. Obviously
Vitali didn't read or didn't remember, and the question comes up again. That,
frankly, is a piss-poor way of running a contest.
> I thought the game was to be called "Project Why"
I think you got that wrong, because it should follow Project X.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
30 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
|
|
|
|
