Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #02472
To: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: Dave Hrynkiw dave@solarbotics.com
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 12:16:08 -0600
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: Structured approach / genome, was: Clarification
At 03:04 AM 4/17/99 , Steven Bolt wrote:
>> Personally, all I see that is lacking for the BEAM community is a
>> clearly defined BEAM nomenclature/legend (or symbology) that Mark
>> currently uses to illustrate mechanical & electronic linkages.
>But putting all weight on Nervous Nets,
>Bicores and so on has imho the same disadvantage as the recently
>proposed structure of standard brains and body parts. What you get is
>a structure without purpose, which will be perceived as a hollow
>facade.
I'm not sure if I got your point - are you saying that MarkT's legend
couldn't accomidate non-Nv structures?
>It seems to me that a richer set of standard
>tasks and arenas is likely to result in a greater variety of more
>interesting BEAM species. Why bother defining anything else?
YES. And that is a task we've been just discussing with Mark in regards to
the next big BEAM games. A total revamp of the ruleset & documentation,
with "dead-weight" events cut (ie: Solaroller class B) and new ones added
(ie: Solaroller "There and back"). More details to come.
>In these arena's, excluding programmables would be considered weak,
>and I don't think it's necessary.
Agreed. Microprocessors have never been refused entry to any BEAM event.
Regards,
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Um, no - that's H,R,Y,N,K,I,W. No, not K,I,U,U, K,I,_W_. Yes,
that's right. Yes, I know it looks like "HOCKYRINK." Yup, only
2 vowels. Pronounciation? _SMITH_".
http://www.solarbotics.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home