Antweight Rules Proposal

All things antweight

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by GeorgeR »

LimaHotel wrote:
Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:12 pm
Regarding bot modularity and when is it a different bot - what about spare chassis (EG. Like Cosmic had)?
I don't see an issue with any level of spare parts, including a new chassis. (I certainly wouldn't call Cosmic a different robot with the new chassis). In fact, many robots don't even have a single part that could be called the chassis (Valkyrie for instance), so you couldn't restrict chassis replacement even if you wanted to.

Actually, after much thought about this issue in the past, my view is that it's the design rather than any physical parts that make a robot what it is. I would have no problem with someone having two identical robots, and simply running the second one if the first was damaged. Assuming you allow spares, what's the difference if they are assembled or not? And if a full spare robot is banned, how assembled can the parts be? It's a huge can of worms, and there isn't an easy answer.

I definitely agree with Shakey that these contentious issues are for a future rule debate. The current ruleset is a long way out of date, and I'd rather get something new in place soon, rather than waiting for it to be "perfect".
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker

User avatar
LimaHotel
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:30 am
Location: Mold / Chester

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by LimaHotel »

Not a fan of 2 bots being "the same" battlebots style, and not sure I like the idea of a combat-ready robot being "spares", but I do agree that a bot is defined by the design rather than the specific materials. I disagree for my bots, but only because of how I build them (IE. Cut first and design later).
Jiggy Sawdust
Jammin' Good with Weird and Flippy
The Pushbot from Mars

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by GeorgeR »

I don't like the idea of someone having a fully working robot as a spare either, it just feels wrong.
But the only way to outlaw it is to either limit the type of spares people can bring, which I think would be crazy given the nature of combat robotics and the difficulty of deciding what is and isn't allowed, or to say that people can have the spares, but can't assemble them, which is just silly (maybe you could have pit marshalls rummaging through our toolboxes checking nobody has any wheels pre-mounted on to gearboxes, or that your spare receiver isn't plugged into your spare esc!)

To be honest it's not a problem now, and I don't see it being one in the future, I barely have time to build one version of a robot let alone two.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker

User avatar
petec
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Burgess Hill, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by petec »

Revised rules are now available:

http://www.robotwars101.org/ants/rules.htm

All previous versions of the rules can be found at:

http://www.robotwars101.org/wp-main/?page_id=154
------------
RobotWars101.org
RobotWars101.co.uk
Antweights.com
Antweights.co.uk
AntweightWorldSeries.com

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by Shakey »

Thank you for posting them up!
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots / Team Nuts:
AWS 44, 45, 49, 51 & 55 Winner - Far too many robots!

AndrewC
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:33 pm

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by AndrewC »

I'm not sure if this thread is considered closed, but I thought I'd use it to raise a discussion about the aggressor rule:

4i) The Aggressor Rule – If two robots fall into a pit or dropoff at the same time ending the fight, where one bot can be clearly identified as the aggressor to this action, the aggressor is judged to have won. Otherwise consider under rule 4j. Normally this occurs where one robot is pushing the other, reactions from spinning weaponry hits are not considered under 4i.

I think that the rule in its current format covers most bases, but I was thinking about a particular situation and I couldn't figure out what would happen from reading the current rules. I was thinking about who would be considered the winner if a grabber had hold of an opponent and then deliberately drove into the pit. The grabber would definitely be the aggressor, but rule 4b states:

4b) A robot that falls off the arena and touches the bottom of the pit or dropoff has lost...

Most of the time both robots would probably touch the floor to some extent, but it's completely feasible for the grabber to land such that the opponent never touches the bottom of the pit. So although they are the aggressor, and their opponent is in the pit, the opponent can't physically touch the floor.

Personally I think that a grabber should have to make some attempt to release the opponent into the pit, but accidentally falling in with them would be acceptable. I think that it's worth some discussion because I could see a situation where the rules are exploited to the extent that as soon as a firm grab is made, the match is effectively over because the grabber then just has to drive to the pit. Personally I think that wouldn't be in the spirit of the event.

Too long didn't read: Can a grabber win by grabbing their opponent and driving into the pit, or should they have to dump their opponent into the pit?
Team Biscuit

Junk In The Trunk (Wedge)
Kaizo (Dual Servo Flipper)
You Only Wedge Twice (Wedge Cluster)
Underbite (Grabber)

User avatar
LimaHotel
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:30 am
Location: Mold / Chester

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by LimaHotel »

As someone who drives a grabber, I always try to remain in the arena for style points, but I always figured that the Aggressor rule trumped the Pit Floor rule. I've never really been too happy with the pit floor rule - like it makes sense for if you bounce back out, but if you're in the pit YOU'RE IN THE PIT. Whether you're touching the bottom or not is irrelevant if you're in the pit, because you're in the pit. It's only ever relevant if you bounce back out, and therefore aren't in the pit, and the judges need to decide whether you were briefly in the pit hard enough to be considered pitted and therefore out.
That rule in itself seems a little arbitrary and I'm not really sure what it's there to do. Like, I get that it discourages people from building a bot to be able to climb back out of the pit, but a) would that be such a bad thing, and b) if a spinner bounces into the pit and back out, they're still mobile? I dunno, it feels like fights that get called there feel hollow. It's just not a rule I'm a huge fan of in general, I'm afraid. So I'd definitely like to say that the aggressor rule trumps it.
(If I'm horribly wrong here then please put me right :p )
Jiggy Sawdust
Jammin' Good with Weird and Flippy
The Pushbot from Mars

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by Shakey »

As far as I can remember it has always been the case and remains the case that the grabber has won in this scenario as they are the aggressor.

Note that a lot of the problems we get with the ruleset are when people go into these wording minutia to try and pull one over or claim a victory against the common sense. While this ruleset tried to clear up most of these of course some stuff like this will slip through. There is a somewhat implied amount of trust in the community that people should be playing by the spirit of the rules.
LimaHotel wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:06 pm
As someone who drives a grabber, I always try to remain in the arena for style points, but I always figured that the Aggressor rule trumped the Pit Floor rule. I've never really been too happy with the pit floor rule - like it makes sense for if you bounce back out, but if you're in the pit YOU'RE IN THE PIT. Whether you're touching the bottom or not is irrelevant if you're in the pit, because you're in the pit. It's only ever relevant if you bounce back out, and therefore aren't in the pit, and the judges need to decide whether you were briefly in the pit hard enough to be considered pitted and therefore out.
That rule in itself seems a little arbitrary and I'm not really sure what it's there to do. Like, I get that it discourages people from building a bot to be able to climb back out of the pit, but a) would that be such a bad thing, and b) if a spinner bounces into the pit and back out, they're still mobile? I dunno, it feels like fights that get called there feel hollow. It's just not a rule I'm a huge fan of in general, I'm afraid. So I'd definitely like to say that the aggressor rule trumps it.
(If I'm horribly wrong here then please put me right :p )
The pit being 'out' is a fairly widely accepted (outside a few cases), the exact pit floor rule is written as such in an attempt to define the pit more clearly as it circles back to having to cover these little minutia people will try to argue. By not having to deal with the possibility of robots that can climb themselves out of the pits it lowers the burden on the community arena builders who don't have to greatly increase the height and hence material use of the arenas just to provide pits that people cannot escape from. The pit in theory is 'bottomless' an infinite void of your robot dissappearing, but physics didn't let us so it's like 2" deep. :P
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots / Team Nuts:
AWS 44, 45, 49, 51 & 55 Winner - Far too many robots!

User avatar
GeorgeR
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:53 pm
Location: Bath, Somerset

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by GeorgeR »

Shakey's pretty much covered it, but I'll add my thoughts.

Yes, the grabber wins in this situation. You seem to be suggesting that this is an unfairly easy way for a grabber to win, but the fact is it's really hard to grab and control an opponent like that. You pretty much need a grab+lift type robot (grabbing alone doesn't usually allow you to move the opponent that well) and while Mantis has been pretty successful recently they're not a type of robot that's been dominant historically.

In addition to what Shakey said about the pit generally being a definite elimination in almost all combat robotics for years; in practice, allowing robots to climb out of the pit would be a nightmare. You may be picturing a cleverly engineered machine elegantly climbing out, but I suspect what would mostly happen would be anyone with a spinner would spin up to full speed and slam it into the walls, hoping to ricochet out. And I don't personally think that is a particularly desirable idea.

As the pit is a definitive KO, the pit floor rule exists to provide the line between a robot being in the pit or not, mostly used in the case of bouncing out or across the pit.

Final note; if you're physically in the pit but not actually touching the floor because you're sat on another robot, that does still count as being in the pit. If in doubt, apply common sense.
Team Zero - AWS 58 Champion!
Zero - rambot - - Axiom - axebot - - Valkyrie - drum spinner
Blueprint - rambot - - Vampire - horizontal spinner - - Particle - ???
RBMK - quad spinner gyro walker - - Duality - dual spinner gyro walker

User avatar
LimaHotel
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:30 am
Location: Mold / Chester

Re: Antweight Rules Proposal

Post by LimaHotel »

GeorgeR wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:13 pm
You pretty much need a grab+lift type robot (grabbing alone doesn't usually allow you to move the opponent that well)
*cough* Jiggy *cough*

I know Jiggy is far from what I'd call a competative bot, but I can control people pretty well if I get a grab! You don't need a grab and lift - a really unstable weirdly tall triangle seems to do the job as well :p

And yeah, I ge it. There have been a couple of events (Though I'm not gonna risk naming any cos I'm suuuper shaky on which ones they were or if I'm just making this up) in which the pit still needed a count. And I get what you're saying - if a robot is in the pit, they're out. I'm still not sure I like the idea of a robot that is still in the arena being "pitted" though, and I'm not talking climbed out, because if someone was able to say "Hey look, that robot is definitely in the pit!" then they're out. But in the split second ricochet madness of a spinner bouncing out of a pit, I dunno but I'd want to keep fighting it. I wouldn't feel like I'd properly won. But hey. I do get it, and it is a functional (if occasionally hard to implement) rule.
Jiggy Sawdust
Jammin' Good with Weird and Flippy
The Pushbot from Mars

Post Reply