|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Control scores equally to damage in our system. If you choose to make a bot that cannot inflict any damage thats your call. If you can repeatedly keep them wedged against the wall or in the air, they're not likely to inflict much damage on you anyway.
In my opinion
most flippers and wedges are relatively boring anyway. Aerobatics and Bumper Cars are only exciting if they are *exceptional*. Very high powered flippers and wedges are fine, but most are not.
Everyone would laugh at a spinner that didnt even dint a bot, so why should a low powered wedge or a flipper get credit for doing something that didnt hurt the other bot ? If your wedge or flipper can *disable* the other bot by stacking them against the wall or inverting a non invertible bot, then fine, but if you cant hurt them, you dont get damage points.
quote:
If I have a wedge and am constantly controlling my opponent by keeping him out of the center of the arena and against the walls [...] or use a flipper to roll him over and thus keeping his wheels off the ground and control him that way it is all classed as "minimal" to no damage.
Thats right, thats called control, not damage.
quote:
But if my opponent puts so much as a scratch on my robot then it is argued that he has done all the damage
No, he only gets the damage points if he does *more* damage than you did. If you flip him and bend a wheel on landing, you get more damage score than they do by scratching you. In what way is this unfair ?
quote:
since the emphasis is placed on damage and not dominating your opponent then the wedges and flippers will always lose.
Where is the emphasis on damage in our judging system ? Damage, Control, Aggression, and Style all get *equal* consideration.
quote:
The dominate robot should win whether it causes damage or not.
I disagree, you are welcome to your opinion of course, but I think the present judging criteria is quite well balanced. Can you point to any matches where the D.C.A.S. system has rendered a decision that clearly goes against the "gut feel" of who should of won ?
(if this turns into a major discussion of judging systems, I'll split it out of the Robolympics Thread, so feel free to weigh in everyone) _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
That is a television show with arena hazards and house robots that distort the match and where judging often seemed to be based on who they wanted in the later episodes rather than who won the match.
Even so..
Damage - tie - no significant damage to either that I could see
Control - Clearly Panic Attack, pushing mortis around and lifting it so it couldnt drive
Aggression - very Close, Mortis's axe looked aggressive, but was ineffective, both robots spent about the same amount of time attacking each other when they could, but PA's lift/control prevented Mortis from attacking as often as PA did.
Style - about equal. Both visually appealing with active weapons
I'd give it to PA based on Control since the others were all about equal. - my Gut Feeling agrees with the crowd and my interpretation of the DCSA system, The Robot Wars judges swung the other way, but thats their opinion, not a bias in the judging system as far as I can tell.
and yes, I stopped the video and made my decision before hearing the judges/crowd - no temporal reverse engineering here..
How does this match illustrate a weakness in the system ? _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:50 pm |
|
|
|
|
assassin
Joined: 27 Jun 2004
Posts: 1105
Location: SunshineCoast
|
quote:
Originally posted by decalkins:
I know this post and my previous will start a lot of arguements...
On strategy: It's rarely used after the first 3 seconds. Sure, the top 10% think about getting the other robot to do turn a certain way, so that they in turn can take advantage of it...
But for the most part, most matches I've seen are High School Playground Boxing Matches. Two people go out at it til one of them stops.
I dream* of the day when all drivers are so good that strategy is actually used in the average match. But from my POV, the use of a clearly defined and properly executed strategy it's the exception, not the rule.
Interesting! I'm just a newbie(and must confess I haven't read the rules), but with every battle I was in I had a plan and sticked to it. For instance the battle from my earlier post, was to control/dominate/make him look useless while conserving battery power(I had a issue there, only about 70% charge). Also with the plan to kick into top gear with about 30 seconds to go, if I was able to conserve enough power during the match(to really nail home the fact that I was the superior bot). This last point didn't happen due to me not knowing how much time was left, it happened @ 3 seconds to go hahah.
Is that not a strategy? Maybe its just easier with a wedge. Every bot has a weakness, I know that my opponents know that(most do Aaron? ) and thats what I will go for 4! _________________ Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
Albert Einstein.
|
Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spockie-Tech
Site Admin
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 3160
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Who bought style up ?
@valen- I take it you mean that you would give the win to Elanor on gut-feeling rather than the actual DCSA rules ?
@assasin - waiting for the last 30 seconds is not a good idea unless you are likely to score a knockout - the judges are supposed to consider the entire match, not just a last minute frenzy by one bot. In practice a strong finish may sway the judges a bit, but its not supposed to.
after we decided to have the judges keep their actual points secret and just award "higher damage" to Bot A or Bot B, the amount of actual damage became irrelevant, it is simply a matter of who did *more* damage than the other. If its scratches vs none, then scratches win the damage point.
@nick - IMO, the charging bot gets the aggression point, deflection earns you nothing unless it causes apparent damage. "possible" shock damage isnt actual damage so doesnt count. Stupidity or Effectiveness isnt aggression, nor does it cancel it out -
To quote the judging guide -
"Attacks do not have to be successful to count for aggression points, but a distinction will be made between chasing a fleeing opponent and randomly crashing around the arena"
also
"sitting still and waiting for your opponent to drive into your weapon does not count for aggression points"
- this would seem to apply to a stationary wedge to me, since the wedge is the weapon, so even if the attacker is merely launching off the wedge, it is still considered aggression.
note that my comments are based upon our *current* judging guides, since they were in effect for the matches under discussion -
You might also like to note that if a robot is of such a design that it cannot be attacked without coming within reach of a spinner perimeter, then any intentional driving into the spinners reach is automatically considered aggression, so unless a FBS is actually moving towards the other robot, it does not get aggression points. _________________ Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people
|
Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:22 am |
|
|
|
|
|