4g) A Clusterbot will have lost when more than half of the botlets have been eliminated.
Simon Windisch wrote:Change rule 4g "A Clusterbot will have lost when more than half of the botlets have been eliminated." because people are putting in a toy car as well an a nearly-antweight in the hope that if the nearly-antweight goes off at the same time as the opponent then the cluster wins. That seems to be more a way of winning by rule manipulation rather than through superior roboteering. Perhaps the rule should read "A Clusterbot will have lost when more than half of the weight of the botlets have been eliminated."
Joey wrote:This seems like the most sensible way to do things, although it could be difficult to police with botlets that are almost but not quite equal in weight and look visually identical - which isn't a situation we have at the moment to my knowledge but could arise.
bitternboy wrote:A hopefully useful input...
A Clusterbot will have lost when more than half of the weight of the botlets have been eliminated
1) I think this may not be the best way forward. If a robot drives the heavier half of the cluster off and in the process goes off itself then it has won. If the same happens but the lighter half is involved then it is counted a loss. I think it is better to deal in more absolute situations i.e. "Both botlets off or no win / one of the botlets of and it's a win" rather than "If the botlet eliminated constitutes half of the cluster's weight (which is debatable in some cases) it is a win". I just think a more "all or nothing" approach to this rule is preferable. I do agree that it needs some tweaking to prevent situations like we had yesterday though. Perhaps the botlet left in the arena should only cause the cluster to win the battle if it is judged to have the ability to win the battle on it's own(because let's admit it, the little black car was in there just for fun). This is just waiting for someone to come up with a more elegant solution.
Andrew_Hibberd wrote:This rule used to be 50% by weight, so we would be going back to the original rules. Using a tiny radio control car IMO is pushing the sporting nature of the rules. It would also be difficult to determine the rules with 2 almost equaly weighted botlets. What about 2/3rds of the weight of the robot clusters weight would be a loss?
1. I think 2/3rds by weight might work, until someone builds a 3-way cluster of 49, 50 and 51g
Dave26 wrote:Surely the easiest, fairest way to have the clusterbot rule is simply you have to knock out ALL the botlets to beat it, regardless of their individual weight? That's how I'd have it. I don't see why this isn't seen as fair. It doesn't give a cluster an advantage in any way and it removes all confusion that might arise as to when one has or has not been beaten.
I'd also like to point out that I did bring up my plans to use the small car in a clusterbot and my reasons for doing so on this forum WEEKS before the AWS, and asked if anyone would object. No-one did. So how come the objections now after the event? Seems to be another case of just cos I thought of it and no-one else did.
And, for the record, I don't intend to enter a cluster anymore, as I find them a little tiresome, so I am not suggesting these rules just for personal gain, which some seem to believe. As I said to Simon on Saturday, I don't think when I suggested the allowance of clusterbots in that fourth "walker" slot on a team that I realised quite how labrinthyne it would become with issues. It seemed simple at the time, haha.
Haywire wrote:To be honest I don't mind having to wipe out all the clusters.
Besides having a proper cluster of two 75g robots and wiping half is different to a antweight and a little RCcar and removing half. As in the first case the half left is much more capable so why should they be punished in the rules for trying to make a decent cluster bot?
I have no objections to little Rc cars it just adds to the fun of it all really. Also who doesn't want to fight the hexbugs?
razerdave wrote:I am in agreement with Andy, this should be 2/3rds by weight. If someone does enter the oddly weighted cluster, the weight off the botlets is written down at the event, so its obvious before the fight which parts must be eliminated to win.
Dave26 wrote:I'd also like to point out that I did bring up my plans to use the small car in a clusterbot and my reasons for doing so on this forum WEEKS before the AWS, and asked if anyone would object. No-one did. So how come the objections now after the event? Seems to be another case of just cos I thought of it and no-one else did.
I think you're wrong about this Dave. I don't think it has anything to do with "I didn't think of it, so I'll complain"
More likely, people either didn't read your post, or didn't appreciate the (possible) implications. Having seen the events that unfolded on Saturday it is much easier to form an opinion.
For quite some time the cluster-bot rules have not been called into question simply because there haven't been many cluster-bots! Now that they seem to be gaining in popularity we may have to refine the rules so that they achieve what we collectively believe to be fair and desirable.
Having said that, the cluster-bot rules seem to have given trouble for as long as I can remember
peterwaller wrote:I don't think it is anything personal Dave it is probably at least partly due to the fact that you are more often the one trying out new ideas.
I freely admit when Combatant came out at about 100gms I saw the opertunity to run it as a cluster, mostly so I could still run 3 more rollers, but it had also crossed my mind that if Combatant flew out of the arena whilst disabling it opponent which is a way I hate to lose I would still win if alsoran was still going.
Dave26 wrote:Oh, I don't think its personal, Peter, don't worry. You were thinking along the same lines as me for CombatCluster anyway. However, I'm still waiting for someone to actually give a reason why a clusterbot should be knocked out due to some weight calculation, rather than the easiest way to police it, which is to say "its not out until you beat all parts". Clusterbots don't have any advantage over any other type of entry, so why are people trying to develop a specific rule that makes them easier to knock out? People on here have said they want it to be 50% by weight, or 2/3rds by weight, but not actually given a reason why it should be like that.
So I'd like to add this. If there is going to be a rule dictating that you can beat a clusterbot due to some weight or percentage ruling, then its only fair that this rule is applied to all types of entry, not just clusters
For example, if a normal 2wd ant loses a wheel, it is out, regardless of how well it can still move. Or, even stupider, if your ant loses 2/3rds of its weight during, say, a battle with a spinner, it is out, even if its still mobile. An unlikely scenrio, sure, but its the only fair way of doing it. You cant just create a rule for clusters and no one else!
Simon Windisch wrote:It's a good point Dave, although we're not trying to create a rule for clusters, we're trying to deal with a rule that is already in place.
Dave26 wrote:To which I am saying that that rule should be removed. It doesn't make sense to have it, and changing it to some other combination of weight or percentage doesn't change the issue.
Like I say, I still haven't found a coherent argument from anyone who wants to change it. The closest thing I've found is people saying what me and Peter did is not "in the spirit" of the competition. Which is not a coherent argument. I could mount exactly the same argument that I don't believe using shapeways is "in the spirit" of the competition, but I'd never press for a specific rule to ban it, cos that's just silly.
So, I ask again. What EXACTLY are people objecting to that means we can't just use the rule "a clusterbot is only out if ALL its components are disposed of"? Which is simple, fair, and beyond any debate at the outcome.
razerdave wrote:Dave: I'd like to change my original thoughts on the cluster rule. You should have to take out all the parts, I agree. I think what a lot of people are finding hard to accept that because that little car was buzzing around, your cluster won even though the much larger part had been taken out, and that it could have been an ant in its own right. The americans do it with the HW's/SHW's, have one massive part and 1 or 2 smaller parts that won't scratch a damn thing.
But, TBH, thats the rules. I'm not a huge fan of the 'Antweight and little car' types of cluster, but that's irrelevant.
Bodge Job wrote:I think, for a clusterbot to be eliminated, all of the botlets have to be out, or they loss there advantage, and even if they do put a nearly ant weight and a mini rc car, it would be no harder to fight than a normal ant weight, as you have a slight advantage over the nearly any weight, so you could defet it more easily, and how hard is it to push a little rc car out?
Exactly. I agree. Though a fair few people proved pushing a small car out to be strangely difficult on Saturday! Maybe they should just practice driving
Simon Windisch wrote:And don't forget, once you have put the big robot out you have basically won, even if you only victory spin until the end of three minutes.
Andrew_Hibberd wrote:Just read Dave's augments on the previous page. Its a much better argument than 50% 66% etc to have to eliminate all the cluster parts. So I guess I am converted to say all parts must be eliminated rather than a given weight. The only other thing is we need to be faster at counting down botlets when immobile.
Simon Windisch wrote:I'm not sure that deciding about rules from the point of view of someone wanting to encourage a particular type of robot is a good idea, it's more likely to lead to unintended consequences. Who thought the current cluster rule would lead to mini cars running about the arena? Who thought that the all around metal armour rule would lead to lots of all metal armoured robots? I'm certainly not able to predict these things and so I think that rules should be decided from the points of view of safety, clarity and fairness only.
Dave26 wrote:I agree 100% with Simon there.