Subject:
|
Re: remember the 1/n rule?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Sun, 17 Feb 2002 02:20:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
450 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Rob Stehlik writes:
> I remember in the good old days when we encouraged the use of one RCX. This
> quote is taken from rtlToronto's 12th post on lugnet:
>
> "In my mind a robot that needs 2 rcx to make one tower is only half as
> good as a robot that can do the same tower in 1 rcx."
>
> So, we're going to use that rule again for project X, right? Your score is
> divided by the number of RCX's you use, right?
> (Dave and Rob smile :)
>
> Just teasing, but there should be some kind of penalty. The dual RCXer's
> have six sensors and six motors to play with. Maybe we could have a
> 'heavyweight' and a 'flyweight' category :)
>
> Rob
I tend to side with Rob on this issue. I think the challenges facing us
single RCX people (I only own 1, so I didn't really have a choice) are
different from the people who use multiple RCXs. I know for me, the
challenge has been to make a reliable "grab and lift" mechanism. I believe
the multiple RCX crowd is faced with different challenges; for example,
communicating between RCXs.
As Rob suggested, perhaps we should match the robots using 1 RCX against
each other in the 'flyweight' category, and the multiple RCX robots in the
'heavyweights' category. This would be the 1st round. Then maybe we could
have the 3 fastest robots in each weight category square off in a
championship battle, where each robot would have a match against the other 5
finalists.
Alternatively, we could hold the competition exactly as it is planned now.
Suppose Xbot "insert your robot's name here" wins overall with the highest
points, and uses 2 (or more) RCXs. This would be the winner. Then we could
take the highest scoring Xbot that uses 1 RCX, and call that the "runner up".
If the overall winner used 1 RCX, then we would take the highest scoring
multiple RCX robot, and declare that the "runner up".
I'm not suggesting giving a penalty to people who use multiple RCXs (yes, I
know that's what I suggested at the dinner, but I was only joking). At the
end, the overall winner will answer the question of whether a multiple RCX
or single RCX solution is the best. And that person will definetly have
bragging rights. What I'm suggesting though, is that maybe we should also
recognize the best Xbot in the other camp, simply due to the different
challenges facing people in the 2 camps.
I wouldn't consider this a "rule change", since that would not be fair 1
week before the event, but simply assigning 2 classes for competitors.
Any comments?
John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Scoring
|
| (...) What if there was only 1 multiple RCX robot and it came in dead last…I certainly don’t think it would be right to call it the runner-up and even if we did it would be a hollow victory. Would this be fair to the robot that truly came in second? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | remember the 1/n rule?
|
| I remember in the good old days when we encouraged the use of one RCX. This quote is taken from rtlToronto's 12th post on lugnet: "In my mind a robot that needs 2 rcx to make one tower is only half as good as a robot that can do the same tower in 1 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
