Robot Count

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision as of 16 April 2013 at 01:21.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

Robot Count

I just did a head-count on the number of robots in each rumble (of only that weight class).

Which comes to this: 458 megabots 132 minibots 170 microbots 229 nanobots

I found that interesting, that there we're fewer mini and microbots then nanobots. Maybe a microbot (>250 + <750) only or minibot only (>750 + <1500) rumble would make those robots more interesting to develop.

    Chase09:00, 13 April 2013

    Thats interesting indeed, the 'Do the best you can with the least possible code' paradigm is challenging to a lot of people. My vote for an extra rumble would go to 'ExtendsRobot', although I know the winner will be kawigi.robot.Girl. I am not sure if such a rumble is possible, because I don't know if it can be (automatically) detected which base class is used.

      GrubbmGait15:09, 14 April 2013

      It could use the honor system, like the twinduelrumble.

        Sheldor21:08, 14 April 2013
         

        Yeah, that should be fine. And LiteRumble makes it super easy to start new rumbles. I'd also be a little interested in a perceptual rumble. I think RetroGirl would have a good chance at #1.

          Voidious21:11, 14 April 2013

          I second the motion of a perceptual rumble. I find perceptual bots interesting, and I would like to make a good one someday.

          I'm pretty sure that of all the current perceptual bots, RetroGirl would be a definite king.

            Sheldor17:55, 15 April 2013
             
             

            I noticed this a while ago.

            I don't think that it's a very big deal. After all, the minirumble is for all robots that have a codesize of less than 1500 bytes, the microrumble is for all robots with a codesize less than 750 bytes, and the nanorumble is for all robots with a codesize less than 250 bytes. So, nanos and micros fit into the minirumble because, well, they are minis in the sense that they are all under 1500 bytes.

            To say that minis and micros could could have their own exclusive rumbles would require different definitions of the weight classes. And, if you're going to all that trouble, you might consider more consistent brackets, like 250, 500, 1000, 2000.

              Sheldor21:07, 14 April 2013
               

              While technically true they fit multiple ranges, I don't really consider nanobots to be micro or minibots, even thought they are. In my mind they are separate.

              I only mention possible minibot and microbot only categories because setting them up would be relatively easy and painless. We already have all the battles for those robots done, they just need to be arranged differently. This would hopefully stimulate more interest in microbot and minibot development.

              As for other rumbles. I think they would need enough interest to really justify a rumble for them. Though a Robot only one is probably a bit overdue.

                Chase11:05, 15 April 2013
                 

                It is indeed an interesting observation. Especially since I'm used to thinking of NanoBots as the fewest, since they're always calculated as a strict subset.

                But I'm not sure I see the benefit of excluding smaller bots from the bigger rumbles? How would it stimulate interest? It kind of makes sense Nanos and Megas would be the most popular. If squeezing bots down to tiny sizes interests you, NanoBots are kind of the optimal version of that. If you're not, you might stick to MegaBots. I'm not sure why it's worth Wallaby losing his MiniMeleeRumble title, or LittleBlackBook not being allowed to take pride in crushing most MicroBots.

                  Voidious16:25, 15 April 2013

                  Precisely. I don't see how it would be a more interesting rumble if GlowBlowMelee wasn't beaten by a bot literally half its size.

                    Sheldor18:00, 15 April 2013
                     

                    I wasn't saying removing the current rumbles, that would be silly. I apologize if that is how it sounded.

                      Chase03:21, 16 April 2013