Magic Penalties

PatrickJameson (2009-05-09 03:48:23 +0000)
As of right now, the penalties for magic have quite a few holes in them. For one, if a magic's position is in the shape of _/\, this would be a DNF under the current regulations, yet __/ would be +2. I think it would be more logical to have the first +2 as well. To solve this I came up with this system. It could have holes as well but I could not find any. http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/922232/magic.jpg The two groups of "joints" that will be used in this are in red and black. Here are the basic rules: If all four joints are less than two tiles high, there are no penalties. If only three joints are less than two tiles high, there is a +2 second penalty. If there are less than three joints that are less than two tiles high, the solve is a DNF. Tell me what you think. Patrick
qqwref (2009-05-09 03:54:19 +0000)
How does this treat the case where one tile is folded over onto the top or bottom? In that case all of the joints would be less than two tiles high, but clearly at least a +2 penalty should be awarded.
PatrickJameson (2009-05-09 04:00:54 +0000)
[quote="qqwref":114t5v5w]How does this treat the case where one tile is folded over onto the top or bottom? In that case all of the joints would be less than two tiles high, but clearly at least a +2 penalty should be awarded.[/quote:114t5v5w] As proposed in a previous thread, we could possibly do 45 degrees(or a different, easy to determine angle) from the goal position.
DavidWoner (2009-05-12 08:14:53 +0000)
Or you could add something that says no two joints may directly overlap one another. This addresses the folding issue and doesn't interfere with the other terms listed.
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.