How could I Improve pt 2

Quote:

---

Um... How does that relate with the topic at hand?

---

It doesn't relate exactly to the topic at hand per say, but it is an act of banter (humour, good-natured fun) between friends in response to a post made in this thread, and from the nature of his reply, Kody personally feels that AJs argument in regard to the 'weakness problem' highlighted a strong case for not having weaknesses, therefore he chose to express his feelings with a jovial comment.

Not every single post on a thread has to relate to the subject topic, just as long as it generally doesn't go off on some completely unrelated topic (unless initiated or encouraged by the author of the thread of course)

If you wanna make a robot with a flail Ben go ahead and show us what you've got. Flails havent been the best weapon in the past but Im all in favour of diversity in our robots so surprise us :)

... yes, weaknesses or no weaknesses, what I can say about it is that in the end it just doesnt matter that much. It just adds a bit of information to your robot, there's no denying in that, and if Mark, among others, want to share this bit of extra information to give the reader a clearer view of the robot, he can be my guest. This extra bit of information however can be completely redundant, or an open door, or an outright joke as has happened on the TV show in the past. A version of Panic Attack with no srimech whatsoever stating slow srimech as its weakness, and some bots claiming none as their weakness, things like that.

And that with real robots you can see a weakness with the bare eye, as opposed to vapourbots, is untrue to me too. When I see a robot standing in the pits, I cant see this robot has... thin armour, for example, with the eye. So indeed in the world of real robots it helps that there is a weakness statistic to figure this out for me. In vapours on the other hand I can see exactly what armour a robot has, in the stats. The stats saying Armour: 3 mm. alu and then later Weakness: thin armour, now that is redundant to me. Im not saying you shouldnt do it, Im saying it doesnt matter much. Same with low torque, and other things, I cant see a robot has low torque while it stands in the pits doing nothing, and if its the first fight of said bot I wouldnt have footage either to see what its capable of. Your example of a set of stats for Splinter is a bad example too, those arent vapourbot stats. If they were, they would say in the stats there is no srimech, again making the weakness stat redundant.

Just my thoughts, Im not blaming anyone for the fact they do or dont use weaknesses in their stats, just giving you something to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majinb

And that with real robots you can see a weakness with the bare eye, as opposed to vapourbots, is untrue to me too.

---

Not to me it isn't. If I see exactly where a skirted robot is hinged I know where to aim for, If I see parts that can be damaged by being mounted externally, that is something I can see and that doesn't come back in any stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majinb

When I see a robot standing in the pits, I cant see this robot has... thin armour, for example, with the eye.

---

I can, as do most roboteers. Robots in the pit area are usually open, to swap batteries and/or gas bottles. There isn't a single robot active in the UK that I don't know the inside of, except the completely new ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majinb

I cant see a robot has low torque while it stands in the pits doing nothing,

---

No, but torque is irrelevant to a fight unless it becomes a pushing match. That neither a weakness or a strength.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majinb

Just my thoughts, Im not blaming anyone for the fact they do or dont use weaknesses in their stats, just giving you something to consider.

---

Likewise.

Ah yes, but with THOSE points, all valid, I think perhaps we should conclude the weakness stat is used as an empty shell most of the time. Often the stat says things like low torque or no active weapon or other things that can be seen in the rest of the stats already, while indeed in your example the weakness stat would actually add something to the description of the robot.

But Im also gonna say alot can be said in favour of Andy's and Kody's arguements, the stats should give enough information to come up with a proper counter strategy.

Okay, now since my question has been answered, I'd like you guys to tell me what's wrong with these stats:

Tanked Up
Weight: 100kg
Shape: Panzer (S3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CixaFEkHwg0
Colour: Green and brown Camouflage
Dimensions: 100cm x 75cm x 20cm
Drive: 4x 24v S28-400 Magmotors, powered by 6x NiCad Battlepacks.
Locomotion: 4 externally mounted solid rubber wheels with aluminum boron carbide hubs.
Armour: 4mm Hardox
Speed: 20mph
Ground Clearance: 0mm at front due to spikes, 20mm at back, and 5mm at sides.
Turning Circle: 0m
Weapons: At the front, there's a 3-pronged electric lifting spike at the front, powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. It scrapes the arena floor, making it 0mm at the front. At the rear, there's a large 8kg horizontally-mounted titanium circular saw powered by a 24v S28-150 Magmotor. The blade spins at 1000rpm, and produces massive amounts of sparks when it touches titanium of any thickness.
Srimech: It is invertible.
Strengths: It looks cool.
Weaknesses: None that I know of.

You still have a weakness. :uhoh:

I don't care. Besides the weakness, i there anything else that needs to be addressed?

Mark, you are being ridiculously stubborn for all the wrong reasons... :roll:

He may be, but if he still wants to put weaknesses in, let him.

I don't really have an issue with Mark having a weakness in his stats. The only person it doesn't benefit is himself.

What I do have an issue with is the weakness being none.

He has stated his reasons for including a weakness. Something along the lines of every robot has a weakness and then puts Weaknesses: None in the stats.

That's what bothers me.

At the moment, it seems to be Weakness: Asks for advice and then ignores it. Sorry to be harsh, but that's how I see it.