View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 13-01-2008, 03:08
Mr. Lim Mr. Lim is offline
Registered User
AKA: Mr. Lim
no team
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1,125
Mr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond reputeMr. Lim has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Intentionally tipping and disabling your own robot FTW...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut View Post
Luckily the GDC saw this potential situation coming, and threw that last sentence onto the rule:
True, but I suppose there are a few questions:

1) "Pushing" and "ramming" have traditionally been defined seperately from each other, but I don't think they are this year. "Ramming" generally implied that significant, intentional damage would be done to the recipient robot from the collision, which is the situation I'm suggesting here. If a robot needs to be "rammed" in order to clear a path, is that different from "pushing," thus penalizable? From what I understand this year, no. Meaning, you're right, this hypothetical blocker bot could be legally "rammed" into submission.

but does that mean,

2) Is a "legitimately" tipped over bot that happens to block a lane of traffic fair game to be smashed into smithereens? I've seen helpless robots intentionally wrenched, and essentially snapped in two - effectively ending a very good robot's chance at winning champs... trust me, I don't think I could go through that happening ever again.

Last edited by Mr. Lim : 13-01-2008 at 03:35.