Subject:
|
Re: One more rule verification
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:15:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
665 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> Well, I want to hear what others (eg Derek, RobA, Iain, Vitali) have to say, as
> they are more important than my opinion...but...
>
> I would take the block count inbound of the two as the greater of the two.
>
> So if Part A gets 5 unique blocks and Part B gets 3, then the total score for
> the entrant (eg Dave Koudys) is 5. This would be the same as if I got a Purple
> block from Chris in Opening 1, and another also from Chris in Opening 2. I
> would only count it once. So I would say, only count them once.
>
> I would also not consider anything passed between the two Parts as a collected
> block. eg, this is not a loophole to guarantee the delivery or reception at
> least one.
>
> Now...speaking of conspiracies and collusion, if a team named "Design Team
> Sandy" entered in a second robot, well, we'd count her separately.
>
> Calum
I think that by leaving this option open many will build one part that goes
around and dispense the blocks and the second part which can just stand in one
spot and have many transfer openings.
If everyone agrees to it then I'm fine with it too, but it will probably be very
likely that everyone is going to go with the same strategy.
Vitali
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: One more rule verification
|
| (...) Well, I want to hear what others (eg Derek, RobA, Iain, Vitali) have to say, as they are more important than my opinion...but... I would take the block count inbound of the two as the greater of the two. So if Part A gets 5 unique blocks and (...) (19 years ago, 22-Feb-06, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
