Subject:
|
Re: rtlToronto14 AC rule change?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Aug 2003 04:32:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
958 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Schilling wrote:
> I'm just wondering what you guy's opinion is on when robots get tangled with
> each other -- not an AC cable, but beams sticking out, that sort of thing.
> Surely this has happened before? At a local puck gathering competition it seems
> to happen with about half the robots every time they do a round!
That's fine, the robots will get stuck on each other as rakes extend into each
other etc. Happens all the time.
> Anyway, an AC cable is "just another LEGO part", so why treat it so
> differently?
No, an AC cable is considered a fibre weapon. Fibre weapons (strings, AC
cables, 9V cables, pneumatic tubing, shreds of rare Swedish ferry polybags) are
outlawed because they make autonomous robotics lopsidedly boring, ie, you fire
one, the other guy gets trapped, and it's unnecessarily boring.
We've quietly always outlawed them since day one, as do most robot events: In
fact, it was Jeff Elliott who suggested we don't let them in at all, back in
rtlToronto3. It's just that no one ever has bothered to use one, so we've never
explicitly said it wasn't allowed.
> side. It seems that this is just part of the game. What if I built a robot with
> a dozen pieces of lego string hanging out from each side. Would that disqualify
> my robot if the other guy got tangled in them? Assume that I'm using the string
> as a valid part of my mechanism for gathering rice, not just to be looking for
> loopholes in the rules. It's a valid question.
Yes, it's a valid question and a fine line.
If your dozen pieces of Lego string really honestly is required, then cool, use
them. Whether or not you intended to tangle as a fibre weapon will be evident
on game day, and we'll toss you if you're being a dork. :)
Why outlaw this specific piece? The problem with the AC cable is not only is it
a fibre weapon, it's a heavy one that's counterweighted on the other end (by a
correspondingly heavy transformer block and potentially a powerbar) off the
playfield, which makes it really quite powerful compared to the a potential
robot entrant.
We outlaw a lot of specific pieces. We don't allow Dacta Control Labs because they're tied to a larger PC (same problem: The serial cord becomes a fibre weapon, the extra computing power and peripherals attached gives unchecked lopsided advantage). We encourage users not to be dorks about IR codes (like RCX shutdown) because they make for lopsided fights.
You could bring a 9751 Dacta Control Lab in and swing it by its serial cable as
a giant wrecking ball. It would be legal, but you'd also be an idiot, and no
one would want to play with you.
Chris and I had a chat this afternoon which basically came to, AC power is not
going to be an issue because we're gonna handle it appropriately on game day:
Anyone dumb enough to build a "Rigged Back to the Future Delorean Power Wire
Snagger*" is gonna get disqualified for being a dork, and anyone who honestly
gets snagged by a AC power cable and has a valid design, will be handled by the
rule on the website. As Bruce says, we often argue about needless things, and I
tend to agree. The arguing is worth it, but in the end, no one does it anyways.
Calum
* - http://www.culttvman.com/assets/images-shop-2003/BTFboxnew.jpg
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: rtlToronto14 AC rule change?
|
| (...) I'm just wondering what you guy's opinion is on when robots get tangled with each other -- not an AC cable, but beams sticking out, that sort of thing. Surely this has happened before? At a local puck gathering competition it seems to happen (...) (21 years ago, 30-Aug-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
