Difference between revisions of "Judging a Bot"
(Created page with 'When builders judge a particular robot, they most likely use or refer to one or more of these four criteria: '''Building skill:''' How well is the bot optimized and "well-built"…') |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
When builders judge a particular robot, they most likely use or refer to one or more of these four criteria: | When builders judge a particular robot, they most likely use or refer to one or more of these four criteria: | ||
| − | '''Building skill:''' How well is the bot optimized and "well-built" - | + | '''Building skill:''' How well is the bot optimized and "well-built" - a well built bot consists a good choice and placement of components (includes wheel choice, drive choice, battery power, weapon choice, etc), as well as a tight chassis. A subtype of this is "clean" or "messy". A clean bot will have minimal and strategically placed extender work, a correct weapon setup and an appropriate chassis. A messy bot will most likely have an unpractical chassis shape and a lot of weight wasted on unneccesary extender work (noticeably quite common on rookie robot builders) |
| − | ''' | + | '''Battle worth:''' How well a robot fairs in battle, ranges from "SFTW" to "killer". It is nearly always linked to building skill. It can differ depending of the arena, as well as whether you're using Stock or DSL - while it is possible to make killers out of a lot of designs, the most efficient designs still are [[HS]] and [[Popups]]. In DSL, it is quite possible to make a killer of most basic designs. |
| − | '''Creativity/Originality:''' How uncommon or new | + | '''Creativity/Originality:''' How uncommon or new is the robot's design - ranges from "[[Clone]]" to" never before seen". However, overly new designs sometimes tend to be less efficient than old and more "experienced" robot designs. There are exceptions, like when [[Popups]] and [[Jugglers]] were created for the first time. |
| − | '''Looks:''' Some builders pay special attention on their robot's cool looks. May be component placement, artful paintjob or both. | + | '''Looks:''' Some builders pay special attention on their robot's cool looks (examples would be notably [[JoeBlo]] and [[Clickbeetle]]). May be component placement, artful paintjob or both. Note that sacrificing sheer efficiency for better looks can happen easily. |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Forums Terminology]] | ||
Latest revision as of 08:56, 17 July 2012
When builders judge a particular robot, they most likely use or refer to one or more of these four criteria:
Building skill: How well is the bot optimized and "well-built" - a well built bot consists a good choice and placement of components (includes wheel choice, drive choice, battery power, weapon choice, etc), as well as a tight chassis. A subtype of this is "clean" or "messy". A clean bot will have minimal and strategically placed extender work, a correct weapon setup and an appropriate chassis. A messy bot will most likely have an unpractical chassis shape and a lot of weight wasted on unneccesary extender work (noticeably quite common on rookie robot builders)
Battle worth: How well a robot fairs in battle, ranges from "SFTW" to "killer". It is nearly always linked to building skill. It can differ depending of the arena, as well as whether you're using Stock or DSL - while it is possible to make killers out of a lot of designs, the most efficient designs still are HS and Popups. In DSL, it is quite possible to make a killer of most basic designs.
Creativity/Originality: How uncommon or new is the robot's design - ranges from "Clone" to" never before seen". However, overly new designs sometimes tend to be less efficient than old and more "experienced" robot designs. There are exceptions, like when Popups and Jugglers were created for the first time.
Looks: Some builders pay special attention on their robot's cool looks (examples would be notably JoeBlo and Clickbeetle). May be component placement, artful paintjob or both. Note that sacrificing sheer efficiency for better looks can happen easily.