| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, John Guerquin writes:
> 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".
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?
What if somebody used 3 RCXs (which I’m quite sure is the case)...would we
create 3 categories Flyweight, Heavyweight, and Really Heavy.
What rule should we have in place to deal with parts in general...should we
limit them to only the contents of 1 Mindstorm set...or...do we create
additional categories for that too?
What you’re suggesting is a scoring change, which is in fact a rule change.
The time for this has passed. As a group, we have discussed the rules and
the scoring. Now, with less than a week to go, I believe it would be very
wrong to open the rules to discussion.
Lastly, in all the competitions that we’ve held, I think there was only one
time that a dual RCX robot won. I certainly haven’t seen a pattern of
multi-RCX robots dominating.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Scoring
|
| (...) We're not going to change it now at a week before. rtl10 was designed from the outset as a full bore, use whatever the heck you like competition. If you had a eight barrel servo actuated robot mechanism driven by a 48 node RCX processing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Feb-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: remember the 1/n rule?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
