ARC

For my tournament I'm probably gonna change up the stat system a little bit. Something like, Speed, Turning, Pushing, Armor, Weapon. Major differences would be that the ricochet from being hit would simply be a function of weapon power (the amount you get spun around being a factor of weapon power and # of wheels/how wide your base is). Control would simply be a factor of speed and # wheels/how wide your base is. Pushing would be who wins in a pushing match + how quickly you push an opponent. Might even remove the Turning stat at the end of it or rename it Control. Simplify, simplify.

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Siphai</dt><dd>Jul 11 2015, 10:56 PM</dd></dl><div>the ricochet from being hit would simply be a function of weapon power (the amount you get spun around being a factor of weapon power and # of wheels/how wide your base is)[/quote]You know, that's something that I've been thinking about for a long time. Before, recoil has always seemed to hinge onto traction and # of wheels, but it's never really been fleshed out. Good to see some thought process on that.

Like, Last Rites goes flying back after every huge hit he makes, most notably his ass-kicking of Mosquito, where he went into a gyroscope spree across the arena. The greater your weapon is, then the more recoil you should suffer.

I know strategy has been a very ambiguous category, but... what about aggression?

From how I see it, most of it is being in control of the match, with some attacking mixed in, and that's how I've been putting it forth. If you control a match, you're being aggressive. The other guy can't do much to stop you.

What are other people's takes on it?

I've always looked at it as how assertive you were during the fight. Basically if you spend most of the match on the defensive (or if your one of the slug-speed spinners, playing the part of an arena hazard), you're not really doing much to earn aggression points.

I've always factored how much control you have during a fight more into Strategy, though controlling a bot can lead to Aggression depending on what you do with your opponent while controlling them.

To my mind, Aggression has always been how often you are moving towards your opponent, or showing intent to attack. Thwacking on the spot could score a few Aggression points, but not as much as other methods.

[20:38:33] Martijn: well
[20:39:26] Martijn: control and aggression are clearly 2 different things in Robot wars, they are 2 seperate categories there
[20:39:33] Martijn: it's hard to put your finger on it
[20:39:45] Martijn: in a game I play control and aggression are even more or less opposites
[20:39:59] Martijn: maybe I should post on the forum instead of rambling here
[20:40:21] playzooki: i thought aggression was being aggressive :V
[20:40:33] Martijn: thing is that control has something to do with also maintaining your defenses, control is something more defensive, aggression is something more offensive
[20:41:13] Martijn: aggression is having a go at your opponent, control is making sure your opponent won't have a go at you
[20:41:19] Martijn: I will totally post this
[20:41:33] Martijn: I have to remove playzooki's quote from this monologue now
[20:41:36] Martijn: thanks a lot playzooki

aggression is going on the attack - if you have a rammer and youre continuously ramming it into a spinner, than you are being very aggressive. but this might be a really bad strategy if youre a rammer with low armor, since youre gonna just end up being destroyed. it's very objective, but I like to think I do a good job of determining it . generally my scores for strategy are closer than my scores for other categories, unless one robot did something really clever or very dumb.

Not sure how much my opinion's worth as a new user, but personally I'd go with the definition of aggression used by RoboGames:

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>Quote:</dt><dd>&nbsp;</dd></dl><div>15.2.2.1. Scoring Aggression
Aggression scoring will be based on the relative amount of time each robot spends attacking the other.

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.

Points will not be awarded for aggression if a robot is completely uncontrollable or unable to do more than turn in place, even if it is trying to attack.

Sitting still and waiting for your opponent to drive into your weapon does not count for aggression points, even if it is an amazingly destructive weapon. Robot must show translational movement torward their opponent for it to be counted as aggression.

Awarding Aggression Points

5-0: a 5-0 score shall be awarded only when one of the robots never attempts to attack the other, and the other consistently attacks.

4-1: a score of 4-1 shall be awarded in the case of significant dominance of attacks by one robot, with the other only attempting to attack a few times during the match.

3-2: a 3-2 score shall be awarded when
Both robots consistently attack the other.
Both robots only attack the other for part of the match.
Both robots spend most of the match avoiding each other. In this case it will be up to the judge's discretion to decide which robot made more attempts to make attack the other.
A Combatant who attacks a full-body spinner (e.g. intentionally drives within the perimeter of the spinning weapon) is automatically considered the aggressor and awarded a 3-2 score in the case where either robots consistently attack, or both robots consistently avoid each other.
There can be no ties in aggression. Judges must decide that one robot is more aggressive than the other.
Note: a Combatant is considered a "full body spinner" if the robot cannot be attacked without moving within the perimeter of the spinning weapon.[/quote]

In this case, each of three judges would award 5 aggression points. So in summary, aggression = trying semi-competently to attack your opponent, and you must actually move towards them.

OTOH, I'd define "strategy" as overall control of the match and of your robot. For example, consistently hitting your opponent from the side would improve your strategy score, as would pushing or flipping them into a wall or hazard or taking control of them with a clamp, lifter, or crusher. On the other hand, doing dumb stuff like driving yourself into a wall of hazard, consistently missing with your weapon, or other "goofs." A spectacular escape from an opponent or hazard might also improve your strategy score.

Examples:

• Icepick Lobotomy repeatedly misses Black Rose with its hammer. IL shows aggression, but poor strategy, while BR might gain strategy points for dodging.
• Juno charges at Charybdis, but misses and rams itself into the wall. Juno is the aggressor no matter what Charybdis is doing because it was attacking an FBS, but it showed poor strategy by hitting the wall.
• Venice Queen pushes Icepick Lobotomy around and holds it under the pulverizer. Venice Queen is the aggressor and gets a strategy bonus for controlling the match.
• Aphelion spends half its match against Chimera 2.0 doing 360 flips while trying to self-right. Aphelion loses big-time strategy points.
• Compound Fracture raises its lifter to block Tellu's axe blows. Compound Fracture gets strategy points, although it might get pushed into the wall.
• Danger Noodle and Archetype charge at each other and hit straight-on, and both go flying. Aggression and strategy are tied: Archetype isn't the automatic aggressor because it could have attacked Danger Noodle without getting hit by the weapon (i.e. by going for the wheels).
• Tanngrisnir and Tanngnj

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>HotDealsInTexas</dt><dd>Dec 10 2015, 05:05 PM</dd></dl><div>Tanngrisnir and Tanngnj

so where are we at now, gents

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>That Kode Guy</dt><dd>Jan 28 2018, 10:55 AM</dd></dl><div>so where are we at now, gents [/quote]Spoilers, I'm still the greatest. :P

false

no really though, where are we at in terms of metagame

I think, with the exception of horizontal spinners, the current meta does a decent job of balancing various types of design while remaining fairly close to the IRL meta. Which, if you want that, is good. However, the downside of it is it allows - and I would even argue encourages - members to go full "vicious metabastard", i.e. hyper-analyzing the competitor's designs and stats thereof, putting a massive amount of emphasis on efficiency over creativity, for example. It almost boils ARC down to a series of equations.

One way to resolve this, I'm hoping, is with the f u z z y r u l e s that have been discussed recently, removing as many hard numbers as possible. It's worth keeping in mind, though, that writers' discretion has kind of stopped being a thing, from what I can see. Other members have pointed out that writers have much less room to manouver with the hard and fast rules we have at the moment, and criticism will possibly happen more often with a vaguer ruleset as different writers interpret different matchups in different ways. I think that's a two-way street, though: writers accept that they won't be able to make everybody happy with their results, and competitors accept that there will be some results they disagree with. Just don't be like DRD and we should all be fine.

Fuzzy rules are bad and you should feel bad

<blockquote class='quote_blockquote'><dl><dt>The_Angry_Goat</dt><dd>Jan 28 2018, 05:01 PM</dd></dl><div>Fuzzy rules are bad and you should feel bad
[/quote]ur bad nerd