2i) Clusterbots

A discussion forum for proposed changes to the AWS rules (2014)

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Forum rules
* Only one rule per thread. Any deviation will be moved by the moderators.
* Keep the discussions on-topic, relevant and polite. Anything else WILL be removed by the moderators.
* If you start a new thread (to discuss a different rule) quote the existing rule in the first post so everyone knows what you're talking about.
* The existing rules (version 4.2) can be found here: http://robotwars101.org/ants/rules.htm
User avatar
Craig_Anto3
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

2i) Clusterbots

Post by Craig_Anto3 »

I'd like to see the it added to the rules that cluster bots must start each fight how they fit in the cube.

Can I also point out that IR is not currently covered in the rules, at present, any bots that have IR controllers are actually not within the rules and cannot compete. We either need that adding or we need to enforce it.
I make that point because people use the hexbug as part of clusters and they currently do not meet the rules.

If we are to get strict on rules we will have to outlaw hexbugs too.
Image

User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by BeligerAnt »

There is no rule against using IR control, nor any rule mandating radio control. In fact, in the definitions IR is explicitly included:
Remote control - Control without physical contact between the robot and the controller (i.e. conventional model radio control, bluetooth or infra red; no wires or strings etc.)
Thus any form of "wireless" remote control is allowed.

I don't think it's realistic to inisist that cluster-bots start as they fit in the cube. In fact, if both botlets meet the requirements of the fleaweight rules they do not actually need to fit in the cube together:
2i) The botlets of a clusterbot must altogether meet the size and weight limits of the class in which they are competing (i.e. all three botlets of an antweight clusterbot must all fit in the same four inch cube at once), but if two fleaweights are competing as botlets of an antweight cluster then they must each conform to fleaweight size and weight restrictions.
At the risk of deviating from the rule under debate, my biggest problem with clusterbots is that many (most?) do not comply with the following rule:
5h) All teams must be self-contained in terms of driver, transmitter, robots and battery packs, i.e. these cannot be shared with another team.
This rule exists to ensure that fights in the group stages can actually occur without a person/transmitter having to be in two places at once (and resulting in an arbitrary decision over which robot "won").
The rule means that any team entering a clusterbot must have 2 drivers and be independent of any other team.
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

StuartL
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by StuartL »

BeligerAnt wrote:At the risk of deviating from the rule under debate, my biggest problem with clusterbots is that many (most?) do not comply with the following rule:
5h) All teams must be self-contained in terms of driver, transmitter, robots and battery packs, i.e. these cannot be shared with another team.
This rule exists to ensure that fights in the group stages can actually occur without a person/transmitter having to be in two places at once (and resulting in an arbitrary decision over which robot "won").
The rule means that any team entering a clusterbot must have 2 drivers and be independent of any other team.
This would certainly return the 'spirit' of clusterbots to its original intention. The way it's currently used is more like a team-deathmatch :)

Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by Hogi »

I can see why transmitters should be self contained to each team but there are plenty of people who's walker/clusterbot slot isn't filled and therefore enough spare drivers for clusterbots. i've driven the tiny part of peter's clusterbot for the last 3 AWS events and only been drawn against it once and when that happened pete simply got craig to step in and drive alsoran for that fight.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by Shakey »

I disagree with the driver having to be self contained. I'm a team consisting of 1 roboteer. By that rule I can never fight a cluster bot.
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
Craig_Anto3
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by Craig_Anto3 »

2m) The following radio frequencies are acceptable: 27 MHz, 40 MHz, 418 MHz, 433-434 MHz, 868 MHz and 2.45 GHz.

infrared is not covered in this, it just needs updating.
Image

Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

I disagree with the driver having to be self contained. I'm a team consisting of 1 roboteer. By that rule I can never fight a cluster bot.
This is the point I argued last time this came up. By the self-contained driver logic, only teams with two or more drivers can enter clusters, which rules out most people.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

StuartL
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by StuartL »

Dave26 wrote:
I disagree with the driver having to be self contained. I'm a team consisting of 1 roboteer. By that rule I can never fight a cluster bot.
This is the point I argued last time this came up. By the self-contained driver logic, only teams with two or more drivers can enter clusters, which rules out most people.
It encourages teams for cluster-bots rather than individuals, i.e. RoboteerX and RoboteerY form TeamZ, entering a bunch of individual robots with individual drivers and a cluster-bot with both drivers.

I'm torn on this one. The advantage of the current model is that 'anyone' with 'anybot' can form a cluster, however to me this isn't the idea behind cluster-bots. I'm all for 'team deathmatch' style battles, which is what the current cluster-bot interpretations have become, but I'd also love to see well engineered 'real' cluster-bots working as a team, practising as a team and winning as a team, rather than the current 'pair of individuals'.

razerdave
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by razerdave »

My cluster is a self contained team bar the driver, doesn't mean they work well together :P. This is why I am making a new cluster.

My opinion is that clusters should be self contained, but allow for 'external' drivers. I mean, how many cluster robot builders have 2 team mates? Only one that springs to mind is Alisdair and Neil (Salt and Pepper, but Neil doesn't drive the other half..).

Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: 2i) Clusterbots

Post by Hogi »

i've fought a few clusterbots and i think most of them have been the “ team deathmatch style ¨, i doubt many clusterbots would compete if we passed a rule that disallowed clusterbots formed by botlets from multiple teams. that may've been why so few of them competed on robot wars. we like to encourage variety in ants and putting tighter restrictions on clusterbots limit even more what amateur roboteers such as myself can do with that fourth entry slot.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)

Post Reply