|
|
|
|
|
|
Nexus
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 903
|
Since you are asking I will throw some of my opinions out there.
Will say it again – just light hearted opinions for the sake of discussions.
Well I am going to support your suggestions because I would prefer a simpler system.
I personally don’t like 10 pages of rules because frankly it becomes something like a Don King fight where you have a gut feeling who won but out comes the rules book to tell you why you actually lost.
I think robots should deserve and earn their wins not by finding a technicality in a big rule book that’s open for interpretation.
Rule 2.2.2 mentions judging by how deep a wound is – that’s irrelevant if there is nothing under the skin, that comment voids air armour and seems flawed to me.
An interpretation of that rule could change the outcome of a fight even though the wound made no difference to anything.
The choice of the word 'wound' in the rules is also very misleading and suggests damage when that might not be the case at all.
I also think damage is overrated as armour is meant to take the damage and if it doesn’t affect you and you keep on fighting then all the better.
If the objective is to incapacitate the other robot then you will only do that by actually damaging something on that robot, scratching or gouging has no effect on its performance so why penalise robots for using their armour as it should be used.
It will just mean you actually have to fight to win which would make it a better spectacle anyway.
Its not like damage is still not part of it as damaging a robot will affect its control and aggression and you will win if that’s the case, it just will eliminate the matches that one robot has control and aggression throughout the match but gets some scratches and gets a loss for it.
Damage sometimes becomes a BS technicality anyway or better put, a bit of a wildcard that people dig up so they can get the win over you even though they didn’t actually beat you in the arena.
These are combat robots, they don’t feel pain, they are made to get pounded and are made to fight not have boardroom discussions.
Look at how other sports function.
In a smash up derby it’s the vehicle that’s still moving at the end that wins, damage doesn’t matter.
In boxing it’s the guy that’s still standing at the end that wins even if he has broken ribs and a broken arm, so here we are with steel skinned armour being precious about cosmetic damage.
Keep it simple… man… we are here to fight, not count band-aids.
and some humour to finish off -
(Boo Hoo my robot has a scratch. OH NO, What am I going to do? Um I guess nothing, that’s what is supposed to happen)
_________________ Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.
|
Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:10 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Marshall
Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 167
Location: Hampton Park
|
I agree with dyrodium, I'm not sure changing the rules this way or that will have an effect on the outcome of 99% of the fights. though having a complex system will turn away new builders. case in point, Ultibots.
for those who do not know what Ultibots is, basically take dungeons and dragons, mix with all terrain robots and you have Ultibots.
It was such a complex system of game play, rules and judging, no one wanted a part of it.
We want to grow this sport, and for those newbies struggling with keeping there wheels on, a complex judging system is the last thing we ALL need.
Now K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) and lets make up. _________________ Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
|
Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:03 pm |
|
|
|