Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kmcclary
I have NO problem with mixing it up at a VERY high level, nor even the toppling of a badly balanced robot while trying to displace it from a scoring position.
- Keith
|
I totally agree here. Keeping a low cg is part of the design challenge. Now, the only way I differ from your view here is that every robot anywhere on the field at any time has potential to score points (at least later in the match) so an opponent making full use of their "gravity advantage" at any time I believe is fully justified. I do not believe in mechanisms or structures designed for the sole purpose of flipping, but when two unlike CG machines are in contact, one of them is bound to fall over.
As for the game's aggressiveness, I didn't see a poll option for "not quite enough aggressiveness" Honestly, I saw so many fragile robots this year that as driver I chose not to engage simpy because I didn't want parts flying into the audience
. But seriously though, I could have broken many of the robots I played against but didn't because I liked the skill and precision features of this game more.
Even though this was a really interesting game with lots of cool mechanisms and objectives, what I like better is robust robots. People seriously need to learn the concept of Industrial design. In 2003, it was a fast paced smash 'em bash 'em game and I loved it. While this year's game brought about more manipulative machines, 2003 brought more robust machines. 2002 was good but 2003 was better since the field was different levels and different surfaces and the alley and bar. For 2002, I didn't think just different zones was exciting enough.
Anyway, even though I saw a lot of flimsy robots, 2004 was my most favorite game yet. There was the opportunity for "rough play" it's just that no one chose to take it.