Proposed addition to rules

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

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

I made my thoughts clear at the event when certain people were complaining about fights between two...shall we say "less effective" robots being "a waste of time". I totally agree with what Alex said, I do not want to be getting into a state where we are excluding an entry just because its not too effective. There were calls to count out robots just because they were slow at the AWS, or because a fight was " boring", which properly annoyed me to be blunt. You cannot lump your own personal opinion onto whether a robot should be counted out or not! If its still moving freely, it carries on fighting.
This is a slightly off piste comment but it ties into this "toy" debate. Sometime yes, these clusters bend rules, but they don't break them. If you wanted to exclude them, as Alex says, how do you word the rule and where do you draw the line? Someone said exclude anything that is pre-built or commercially available, but how do you police that? That wording would exclude any kind of kit being entered, such as Will's kits, as well as any robot that you buy off, or get made by someone else.
Although I would like to see more invention within clusters, I don't think there's a way to rule this, so everyone will just have to like it or lump it. However, I do quite like the idea of enforcing the rule where all parts of a cluster must be built (or at least self contained by) the team that enters them, though I do think you can draft in another driver to help. This would cut out random fleaweight pairings, but not really much else.
I also don't agree with the fact that we need to limit entries. The days just need much better organisation and a bit of a restructure. I believe the idea for the next one is to start the day going straight into the AWS, then running the extra comps (fleaweights and nanos included) at the end of the day. I think everyone would prefer a completed AWS and having to miss one of those out than running out of time on the main competition.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Hogi »

yeah, good shout Dave. i second the removal of entry limitations. i think we should at least be able to enter four rollers if we want to rather than three rollers and one that if either a walker or a clusterbot. that would probably cause two flea clusters and toy clusters to die out anyway but with the effectiveness of the nearly ant plus nano clusters, i doubt the clusterbot would die out entirely. even if it did, the only reason we have so many clusterbots is because we allow people to enter two fleaweights as a cluster. you don't see many clusters in beetles or feathers ( i would include heavys but i've heard that heavyweight clusters are banned in this country nowadays ) i just think we should bring the antweight catagory in line with the bigger ones, by this i mean allow clusterbots but don't include extra rules such as the two flea clusterbot rule to encourage more clusterbots.

my proposal: change the entry limit rule to: a team may enter up to 4 robots. and take away the two flea cluster rule.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Shakey »

I like the idea in of all parts of a cluster having to be built by the same team but allowing additional drivers.
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!
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

Dan, as we said before, that won't happen. The point of the 4th robot has always been to encourage builders to take up the challenge of a more difficult type of robot. If we stop it being clusterbots or walkers, then it would simply be "a team can enter 3 robots", as the point of having the 4th would no longer exist. I don't want to change that rule, just tweek the fine details a little.
I think enforcing the "clusters must be contained within (built by) the team they're on" would even out some of the details (though it would mean no Lemmings).

I guess this debate can be summed up in a similar way to the one about spinners. Everyone loves a good spinner fight and people complain that spinners seem to be on the decrease, but then the same people don't want to enter spinners as they believe they stand less chance of winning with them (Peter and Andy Hib have both chosen to enter different robots over their spinners as they believe they stand more chance that way). My answer to that has always been simple - if you want more spinner fights, build spinners and enter them. If you chose to enter a different robot instead, then that's your choice.
So, I guess, if we all want more interesting clusterbots and walkers, then we should get out there and build them, rather than moaning about what other people are entering. My next AWS team is hopefully going to be three spinners and one purpose-built clusterbot, with Gemma taking on Dibby duties. I urge other people to start to build the same way, but again, its your choice. That is the point of the competition after all.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Rapidrory »

Nooo! You can't ban Lemmings :( The comic value is just too great to lose! I mean, the rule makes sense.. but it would still be a sad end..

Also, Alex and I both now have 2 spinners in each of our teams, which should make matters a little more interesting :)
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc
Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Hogi »

sorry Dave i misunderstood you there. my mistake :(

i agree, if you want more spinners, build them! if you want more interesting clusters, build them! i once thought “ hey, why are there so few grabbers in the competition” i now run a grabber in my team even though it doesn't stand much of a chance of doing very well. i am hopefully going to be building a nanoweight and then replacing the hexbug with it in my clusterbot.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

Lemmings could still compete if someone fancied building all the components...anyway, the rules haven't been changed yet, just ideas. Does enforcing it really make much difference anyway?
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by AntRoboteer »

I have no idea how you could possibly enforce that all botlets are made by the same team. Some teams work together and help build each other's robots rather than building and driving them completely ourselves - especially on the cluster front. Sometimes there is just too little time to build 2 robots yourself with GCSE revision and the like so we have to give that duty to somebody else - make a cluster partner that works in battle and moves and stuff. I really do not see why having them built by the same person would affect or change these goals. If I was to make my own cluster partners (both pushers in my case), they would probably be just as effective (or ineffective) as a cluster partner built by somebody else clustering with one of my robots and would probably have the same characteristics. I really do not know what the difference would be if another person built it apart from limiting the number of ideas and the diversity of design in a cluster.

Two robots paired up that have the same design (what people are really wishing for with all this 'proper cluster' nonsense) and therefore same design flaws (such as being flipped over and not being able to right or run inverted correctly) would be less exciting and difficult to battle than a cluster with two different botlets with different merits and flaws. Therefore, I would choose to build a cluster with two completely different botlets. However, would I then be accused of somebody else making one of the botlets because I have to get somebody else to drive it and it looks different to the other one in the cluster?

Maybe the solution would be to have two robots that can dock onto each other before the battle and are 'attached' in a way which would show they have been built for the purpose of being in a cluster. They would then drive away and become seperated. This could be done using something like a piece of plastic being held on by velcro or similar and would signal that the cluster is not a random combination of fleas (which I have found to be ineffective but amusing anyway!) but something which conforms to the rules. Maybe a rule should be added like this:

"Every botlet in a cluster must be tethered to each other before the call to activate".

This would eliminate the 'random flea cluster' disagreement we all seem to have. If two fleas were made with a mechanism or otherwise in place in order to do this, the pairing would not be so 'random' and therefore not opposed by everyone saying they wish to eliminate flea clusters. They don't have to be built by the same team otherwise we could end up losing the diversity and innovation that the antweight class is unique for and fall into the more boring realms of the heavyweight class where almost every robot is a flipper and other designs are laughed at because they aren't effective - ever wondered why we've lost all of the axe robots and (most importantly for me) multi-weapon robots like the axe and flipper combinations?
Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by Hogi »

i don't think a rule being made to force clusters to start tethered would really help as you could simply put a piece of very weak tape between two fleas and then after activate they could easily pull away from each other and the only difference would be that one botlet has a piece of tape pointlessy dangling off of it and possibly hindering it for no real reason. i see no reason for changing the clusterbot rules at all really except for maybe insisting that two flea clusters must fit within the 4 inch cube together the same as any other type of cluster does. that would have minimal effect on the clusterbot robot type ( a robot composed of more than one seperate parts) but still allow people to get some more use out of their fleas provided they can both fit within the antweight restrictions which sounds fairer than them both having to conform to the fleaweight restrictions. by this i mean: if both botlets were exactly 3 inches cubed, the entire robot entry ( clusterbot ) would be 6 inches cubed in total. if we allow this we technically contradict the rule that antweights must fit within a four inch cube. i know i havn't worded this post very well but you can probably see where i'm coming from with this. entering two fleas as an antweight clusterbot allows you a bigger total size than other clusterbot types which obviously isn't fair.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Post by AntRoboteer »

That's the strange thing - whenever I have entered a cluster, it has been (and quite rightly so) checked for fit in the 4 inch cube AND (if it was a flea cluster) each botlet was checked inside a 3 inch cube. This is the right way to do it. On the other hand, 2 flea botlets should fit in the 4 inch cube pretty soundly regardless. You will be (by my calculations) getting approximately 2.3 inches cubed extra in the 4 inch cube. This basically gives you another 3 inch cube for free if my calculations are correct and therefore the testing of clusters in that cube is pointless. However, I think the way Dave and Gemma conduct the Tech Check stages is just so painless and efficient that it doesn't bother me anyway. They are absolutely right to check whether a flea cluster fits in the cube regardless. I still think flea clusters are just great - they work well, often fit in the cube (if they don't, don't allow them entry) and are good fun. I don't see why anybody wants to get rid of them personally.
Post Reply