How could I Improve pt 2

[corsair_lightning]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

it's still easier for me to just look at the weaknesses and try and develop a strategy.

...that's why I don't give you any real weaknesses to work with?

Is that a misspelling?

Besides, I'm still able to discover weaknesses by myself. It's not like I need them. Like Leo said, while you don't need them in real life, since you can look at your opponent, you do need them here, since vapourbots aren't real, or something like that.

[joey_picus]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

...no, it isn't?

[kodster]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

[quote=corsair_lightning]

it's still easier for me to just look at the weaknesses and try and develop a strategy.

...that's why I don't give you any real weaknesses to work with?

Is that a misspelling?

Besides, I'm still able to discover weaknesses by myself. It's not like I need them. Like Leo said, while you don't need them in real life, since you can look at your opponent, you do need them here, since vapourbots aren't real, or something like that.[/quote:3i6ul737]
That's what he says, but as Leo doesn't have a tournament running, I think I can get away with not putting those in my stats anymore.

[corsair_lightning]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Heh... Nice try getting away with it in my tournies...

But seriously, what should we do to clarify this whole Weakness problem?

[kodster]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Given my previous experiences with you and your tourneys, you shouldn't even expect me to enter them. :P

The solution? Let the tournament writers decide the stat chart rules as they have been since the beginning. :P

[andrewj]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

The issue of putting weaknesses in vapourbot stats was a topic for discussion in the old How Could I Improve thread. Some of the highlights for you to think about:

Why state them? In a sense, combat robots is a war, you don't see solders with Weakness: Shoot me in the back, I can't see you there... on them do you?

I also don't design robots to have weaknesses, I try damn hard to make them as hard as possible to beat, so why would I be handing out an easy way for them to be taken out.

Weaknesses always exist, it's nature. But making those weaknesses hard to exploit and minimising them is what I aim for.

If you cannot work out your opponents weakness from their stats or images, that's your issue, why whing because people arn't posting weaknesses to make it easy for you... What next, authors having to write battles so everyone wins a battle at least once a month

You find strengths and weaknesses by reading the stats, it doesn€™t take long. Why does it annoy you that I do not hand out weaknesses for me to be screwed over with in tournaments? Is it because you cannot find any weaknesses to exploit yourself? If so then that€™s just good for me, because it means I have designed a vapourbot to do what it is meant to. WIN!

A key sentence came up in this discussion - €œI also don't design robots to have weaknesses€. Which is exactly right, if you know your robot has a weakness, would you not try to hide this? Or, even more logically, would you not try to ensure your robot does not have any weaknesses? Why have a weakness saying €œtoo slow€ when you could just make the robot faster? It just makes me cringe. If your robot has weaknesses, you hide them, prevent them, or scrap the design.

I€™m not here to make up the numbers; I€™m here to win. So why would I intentionally make a design with weaknesses? I don€™t want a perfectly good vapourbot to be screwed out of a tournament because it got pitted for having €œlittle traction€ or flipped OOTA because it had €œhigh ground clearance€. Surely if you have any intention of winning, the last thing you would do is tell your opponent how to beat you. I can see no sense in that what so ever.

I€™m not saying my vapourbots don€™t have weaknesses. I€™m just saying it defeats the object of researching and designing if all you are going to do is say how to beat it. If you can€™t figure out how to beat something, that is not my problem.

Telling your opponent how to beat you takes away all the credability and work you have put into a design. If I truely beleive my vapourbots had any weaknesses, I would have fixed them. So there is no purpose of me trying to nitpick for weaknesses. That is everyone elses job.

As I said before, it€™s your decision whether to include them or not. Feel free to keep them in, it could be a benefit for me in the future!

[kodster]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Mr. Andrew Jackson, a parcel containing 128 metric tonnes of win has been shipped to your place of residence. Please allow 5-7 weeks for delivery.

[neontetra23]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Quick question: Are flails still Legal?

[corsair_lightning]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Mr. Andrew Jackson, a parcel containing 128 metric tonnes of win has been shipped to your place of residence. Please allow 5-7 weeks for delivery.

Um... How does that relate with the topic at hand?

Yes they are, Ben. Flails are still legal. Are they effective? No, but they are legal.

But to get back to the topic at hand, here are the latest stats of Tanked Up.

Tanked Up
Weight: 100kg
Shape: Panzer (S3).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CixaFEkHwg0
Colour: Green and brown Camouflage
Dimensions: 100cm x 75cm x 20cm
Drive: 4x 24v S28-400 Magmotors, powered by 6x NiCad Battlepacks.
Locomotion: 4 externally mounted solid rubber wheels with aluminum boron carbide hubs.
Armour: 4mm Hardox
Speed: 20mph
Ground Clearance: 0mm at front due to spikes, 20mm at back, and 5mm at sides.
Turning Circle: 0m
Weapons: At the front, there's a 3-pronged electric lifting spike at the front, powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. It scrapes the arena floor, making it 0mm at the front. At the rear, there's a large 8kg horizontally-mounted titanium circular saw powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. The blade spins at 1000rpm, and produces massive amounts of sparks when it touches titanium of any thickness.
Srimech: It is invertible.
Strengths: It looks cool.
Weaknesses: None that I know of.

[leorcc]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

[quote=corsair_lightning]

it's still easier for me to just look at the weaknesses and try and develop a strategy.

...that's why I don't give you any real weaknesses to work with?

Is that a misspelling?

Besides, I'm still able to discover weaknesses by myself. It's not like I need them. Like Leo said, while you don't need them in real life, since you can look at your opponent, you do need them here, since vapourbots aren't real, or something like that.[/quote:14q2sbqd]

Just to clarify, when I say these things that is me personally as a participant talking. I don't make the rules, but if I do have an opinion on a certain rule I will voice them.

[RogueTwoRobots]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Um... How does that relate with the topic at hand?

It doesn't relate exactly to the topic at hand per say, but it is an act of banter (humour, good-natured fun) between friends in response to a post made in this thread, and from the nature of his reply, Kody personally feels that AJs argument in regard to the 'weakness problem' highlighted a strong case for not having weaknesses, therefore he chose to express his feelings with a jovial comment.

Not every single post on a thread has to relate to the subject topic, just as long as it generally doesn't go off on some completely unrelated topic (unless initiated or encouraged by the author of the thread of course)

[majinb]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

If you wanna make a robot with a flail Ben go ahead and show us what you've got. Flails havent been the best weapon in the past but Im all in favour of diversity in our robots so surprise us

... yes, weaknesses or no weaknesses, what I can say about it is that in the end it just doesnt matter that much. It just adds a bit of information to your robot, there's no denying in that, and if Mark, among others, want to share this bit of extra information to give the reader a clearer view of the robot, he can be my guest. This extra bit of information however can be completely redundant, or an open door, or an outright joke as has happened on the TV show in the past. A version of Panic Attack with no srimech whatsoever stating slow srimech as its weakness, and some bots claiming none as their weakness, things like that.

And that with real robots you can see a weakness with the bare eye, as opposed to vapourbots, is untrue to me too. When I see a robot standing in the pits, I cant see this robot has... thin armour, for example, with the eye. So indeed in the world of real robots it helps that there is a weakness statistic to figure this out for me. In vapours on the other hand I can see exactly what armour a robot has, in the stats. The stats saying Armour: 3 mm. alu and then later Weakness: thin armour, now that is redundant to me. Im not saying you shouldnt do it, Im saying it doesnt matter much. Same with low torque, and other things, I cant see a robot has low torque while it stands in the pits doing nothing, and if its the first fight of said bot I wouldnt have footage either to see what its capable of. Your example of a set of stats for Splinter is a bad example too, those arent vapourbot stats. If they were, they would say in the stats there is no srimech, again making the weakness stat redundant.

Just my thoughts, Im not blaming anyone for the fact they do or dont use weaknesses in their stats, just giving you something to consider.

[leorcc]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

And that with real robots you can see a weakness with the bare eye, as opposed to vapourbots, is untrue to me too.

Not to me it isn't. If I see exactly where a skirted robot is hinged I know where to aim for, If I see parts that can be damaged by being mounted externally, that is something I can see and that doesn't come back in any stats.

When I see a robot standing in the pits, I cant see this robot has... thin armour, for example, with the eye.

I can, as do most roboteers. Robots in the pit area are usually open, to swap batteries and/or gas bottles. There isn't a single robot active in the UK that I don't know the inside of, except the completely new ones.

I cant see a robot has low torque while it stands in the pits doing nothing,

No, but torque is irrelevant to a fight unless it becomes a pushing match. That neither a weakness or a strength.

Just my thoughts, Im not blaming anyone for the fact they do or dont use weaknesses in their stats, just giving you something to consider.

Likewise.

[majinb]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Ah yes, but with THOSE points, all valid, I think perhaps we should conclude the weakness stat is used as an empty shell most of the time. Often the stat says things like low torque or no active weapon or other things that can be seen in the rest of the stats already, while indeed in your example the weakness stat would actually add something to the description of the robot.

But Im also gonna say alot can be said in favour of Andy's and Kody's arguements, the stats should give enough information to come up with a proper counter strategy.

[corsair_lightning]

Re: How could I Improve pt 2

Okay, now since my question has been answered, I'd like you guys to tell me what's wrong with these stats:

Tanked Up
Weight: 100kg
Shape: Panzer (S3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CixaFEkHwg0
Colour: Green and brown Camouflage
Dimensions: 100cm x 75cm x 20cm
Drive: 4x 24v S28-400 Magmotors, powered by 6x NiCad Battlepacks.
Locomotion: 4 externally mounted solid rubber wheels with aluminum boron carbide hubs.
Armour: 4mm Hardox
Speed: 20mph
Ground Clearance: 0mm at front due to spikes, 20mm at back, and 5mm at sides.
Turning Circle: 0m
Weapons: At the front, there's a 3-pronged electric lifting spike at the front, powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. It scrapes the arena floor, making it 0mm at the front. At the rear, there's a large 8kg horizontally-mounted titanium circular saw powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. The blade spins at 1000rpm, and produces massive amounts of sparks when it touches titanium of any thickness.
Srimech: It is invertible.
Strengths: It looks cool.
Weaknesses: None that I know of.