The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Place discussions about upcoming events here in this thread.

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3213
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by peterwaller »

First of all this is just my opinion and I am not trying to upset or wind anyone up.
Personally I believe that 3 independant judges, who are as we have heard experienced, who judge all the fights is much better than just selecting 3 roboteers who are in the competition.
In most cases the people are not picked until after a fight or at least a fairway through it when it is beginning to look like a judges decision is going to be needed.
I find it is difficult not to be influenced by friendship and the possibility of coming up against the robot in later fights so much prefer not to judge.
So by all means lets have a discusion about how the judging decisions should be made but I still think the judges who gave up a day for us did a good job and at times had to make decisions that I would have not liked to make and that I am not sure I disagree with.
As to the arena I do prefere a larger arena with less drop of but while our own AWS rules still stipulate a 50% falloff we can hardly complain about that.
EpicentrE
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by EpicentrE »

I want to apologise to the judges for insinuating they weren't experienced or qualified to judge. I still disagree with the decision, but shouldn't have assumed that you were unqualified to judge just because I don't know you personally.

Regarding arena rules, I do think we should amend our rules to either reduce or scrap the 50% drop off rule, now that we've shown to (as far as I'm aware) universal agreement that things are better without it. This could be incorporated with Craig's new scoring system if we decide to adopt it. However committee-related matters have been quiet recently, with no activity on the committee forums and meetings not taking place at events. This thread is not the place for those discussions, obviously, but how should we go about starting discussion on this sort of thing? Last I checked I don't think I'm on the committee so don't want to overstep my boundaries :P.
Scott Fyfe-Jamieson, Captain of Epic Robotics. Champion of AWS38/41/42.
http://www.epicrobotics.co.uk
User avatar
Rhys
Posts: 738
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Caerphilly, South Wales

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by Rhys »

All in all, I'd say it was a very well organised event. The only issues/suggestions I have are:

1. I'm still not crazy about hiving the pits in a different room to the arena. I know it was a record attendance and space was at a premium, but it felt a bit disjointed. The stream in the pits would often cut out and go to an advert. So if you were in the pits, you might not hear if you were up next. Also, as Pete mentioned, there was a slight delay, meaning it was sometimes hard to distinguish who was up next. Not huge issues, and I'm guessing there's not much that can be done to fix them, but I just thought I'd mention it.

2. It was good having the next 4 fights on screen, but I'd still like some way of seeing the full draw available to the competitors. It can be a bit demotivating just going into fights and not knowing who is up next and how far you haver to go to reach the final stages. Maybe a second laptop could be running the same version of antlog? Or simply just have a paper copy of the draw knocking about? Plus it would also help eliminate errors. Currently if the wrong winner is selected, nobody is able to pick up on it as nobody can see the draw. Where as if the draw was available to all, we'd be able to flag up errors before it's too late to correct them.

3. The arena was a little disappointing, but to be honest that's probably because we've been spoiled a bit of late. It's nice to have big arenas, but the one we used on Saturday was no worse than the majority of arenas we've used in the past. I'd always prefer a bigger more enclosed arena, but obviously that's not always possible.

I thought having 3 judges was a good idea, and have no issues with the decisions they made. I'm not saying I would have agreed with them on the Fandabadozy vs Robot Simulator 2014 fight, but as there's no criteria for judging a fight, their opinions shouldn't be disregarded. As Will say, they were fully briefed and have seen their fair share of robot combat in the past.

And this isn't really AWS43 specific, but I'd second Scott's idea to maybe get the committee kick-started again and propose some rule changes regarding the drop-off. I know the 50% rule has been here since the start, but it's a bit disheartening when you sit down to design a new robot and think "A 4wd pusher is my best chance of winning an AWS". I know it makes it more appealing to newcomers as they can be competitive with a simple pushbot, but it's making all the robots a bit samey.

Anyway, apologies for the ramble, but those are my thoughts.
Image
User avatar
Craig_Anto3
Posts: 617
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by Craig_Anto3 »

Firstly I'd like to apologize for my previous outburst, I was still angry at how I felt we were belittled and ignored on the day.
Judging criteria is not defined and I am part of an FRA sub committee that is designing a point scoring system, however I would ask that it be referred to as a scoring system rather than "Craig's system" I maybe one of the architects of the system but it is not mine alone.
This issue is not unique to AWS but rife throughout Combat robots, so this will be my final comment on the matter with regards to AWS43.

I do have a concern from the event with regards to the pits, being separated from the arena is an issue. I had taken my walker (Son of Photophattiephobia) out after it failed to work and put it on charge, when I returned the LiPo battery had massively expanded and was on the verge of a fire. At FRA events we are required to stay with LiPos when they are on charge and I was also somewhat concerned prior to my incident that my robots and personal belongings were out of sight during the show. Perhaps if we are to return we could have space at the top of the hall.

I would like to rally the call the reinstitute the AWS committee, however rather than having a single leader or elected members we could use the lunch break to sit and chat as a community rather than locking away a select few.
Image
Psychostorm
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by Psychostorm »

If I had any concern over AWS 43, it would be the amount of room around the doorway. 8 competitors in queue? Also a lack of places to stand. Humans can't sit for long periods of time.

Concerning drop off, I'd like to formally object to the minimising of the drop off zone.

People don't drop off the edge of the arena due to an increase in 4 wheel drive pushers. They do so because they have not driven well enough to avoid it.

It is not the purpose of the rules nor the arena design to save people from their own incompetence. (Bold statement from someone who falls off every other match.)

This is a driving contest as much as damage.

Should the majority still wish to minimize the drop off - I propose adding a no corners rule to stop robots hiding in them.

(ps worth pointing out a 100% drop off rule would've settled Robot Simulator vs Fandabadozy)
alasdair
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:52 pm
Location: Marlow, Bucks

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by alasdair »

I will say again, fantastic event, run very smoothly and was a hugely enjoyable day.

I must say I agree with Andy re the judges decision. I appreciate that it is very hard to call but the fact that fandabadozy is a very defensive robot by design and that it was 100% successful in what it was designed to do shouldn't mark it down. In any case I don't think that Andy was being less aggressive, they were both driving at each other at various points but because Andy was slower and trying to get under RS2014 he gave the impression he was less aggressive.

I really liked the extra room with the video feed but I must say that random bouts of extremely loud music and the constant feed from the main room meant there was really no where to relax, especially in such a high pressure tournament.

Finally, I know this is a minor thing, but I really felt that the cameras got priority over the drivers when it came to viewing the arena. It is probably personal taste, but I much prefer to be stood behind my robot as it starts, which I obviously couldn't have due to the positioning of the camera equipment. Not only this, but the portholes and other fixings on the transparent cover meant I found it difficult to find a position where I would have clear visibility of the entire arena. Just a minor thing, but made it slightly tricky when fighting. Don't really know how you would fix it either.
User avatar
bitternboy
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by bitternboy »

alasdair wrote:Finally, I know this is a minor thing, but I really felt that the cameras got priority over the drivers when it came to viewing the arena. It is probably personal taste, but I much prefer to be stood behind my robot as it starts, which I obviously couldn't have due to the positioning of the camera equipment. Not only this, but the portholes and other fixings on the transparent cover meant I found it difficult to find a position where I would have clear visibility of the entire arena. Just a minor thing, but made it slightly tricky when fighting. Don't really know how you would fix it either.
I was thinking of raising this one myself. It's just a derivation of the non-ideal arena problem though, not a huge problem but it did put me subconsciously on edge a tiny bit during the fights.

First and foremost though I would like to say that AWS43 was definitely one of the most enjoyable robot competitions I've ever been to and that really, despite a few details which have been brought up, you nailed the format and the atmosphere.
Jonathan Atkinson
Before you criticize another person, first walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you critisize them, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.
EpicentrE
Posts: 831
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by EpicentrE »

I agree with the comments about the music. One of the things I find most irritating about the feather/heavy events is the need to have music blaring constantly, and I wouldn't want to see this at antweight events. It serves no purpose whatsoever other than to distract and annoy. The commentary feeding through the speakers didn't annoy me, however, but I can understand why others would find it jarring. Maybe a drop in volume would be sufficient to make everyone happy. I also agree with the comments about the cameras. I believe the main stream camera was to the side of the arena, but there was someone else recording in the centre which was the one that Alasdair was referring to, I believe. Could this one not have been set up on the other side of the arena to the stream camera? Or even next to the stream camera?

Again, this isn't the thread for this, but damn me if I just can't help responding. Less drop off is required to even the playing field between different designs and types of robots. Pushers, as a type of design, have the goal of controlling their opponent, moving them around the arena into favorable positions, and either winning through pushing their opponents out of the arena, or winning on judges decisions by controlling the other robot for a large majority of the fight. In an arena with lots of drop-off, a pusher can, in many cases, if it has control of the other machine, just push it in whichever direction it happens to be facing and have a fairly high chance that it will lead to a victory, with little thought given to control. In my mind, this does not encourage innovative pusher designs, nor does it encourage good driving. It encourages defensive, passive driving from opponents of pushers, being very careful to never be anywhere outside of the centre of the arena as they could lose in an instant, and encourages pushers to just drive straight towards opponents with little thought to direction or control as they are reasonably likely to win this way. It's worth noting that Void's more recent incarnations do a lot of pushing, and I too have to drive far more intelligently, and have more of a chance to display skill, when drop-off is lessened. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Additionally, the increase in spinner power combined with the large drop-off means that horizontal spinners have all but completely disappeared from competition, with a very small amount of exceptions. To counter the point that may be raised, yes, spinners should be designed to be stable in their footing as much as possible and not fly wildly around the arena upon scoring a hit. However horizontal spinners will always have some kind of uncontrolled lateral movement upon scoring a hit, and both smaller arenas and less drop-off highly increase the chance that an act of aggression can lead to a loss. I would very much like to see more horizontal spinners in competition as they are generally more damaging than vertical ones, and I think many people have become complacent in their choices of armour without the risks of suffering powerful horizontal blows. I'd also just like to see more of them because variety is good.

Additionally, I would personally not like to see additional rules of this type implemented. I would rather the rule was removed entirely and event organisers could innovate with their arena designs (with feedback from the community, of course), as I believe that this would lead to the most popular and fairest arena designs appearing at more events due to...call it natural selection, I suppose. The survival of the fittest (arenas), by Chantweight Darena. (I love terrible wordplay)

I'll happily copy & paste this to a relevant committee thread when such a thing crops up, however I just didn't like the assertion that people wanted less drop-off because they were bad drivers.
Scott Fyfe-Jamieson, Captain of Epic Robotics. Champion of AWS38/41/42.
http://www.epicrobotics.co.uk
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by Shakey »

alasdair wrote: Finally, I know this is a minor thing, but I really felt that the cameras got priority over the drivers when it came to viewing the arena. It is probably personal taste, but I much prefer to be stood behind my robot as it starts, which I obviously couldn't have due to the positioning of the camera equipment. Not only this, but the portholes and other fixings on the transparent cover meant I found it difficult to find a position where I would have clear visibility of the entire arena. Just a minor thing, but made it slightly tricky when fighting. Don't really know how you would fix it either.
This was actually a major thing for me, I much prefer to be standing directly behind my robot during a fight, If you watch Stanleys fights you'll notice I favoured driving to the left then pushing to the right purely because I was then situated behind the robot. It just annoyed me that the best positions to stand were either in the way of audience/camera or judges. The roboteers should always come first when it comes to viewing the arena.

I also support a decrease dropoff but only to 60%, this would be enough to add a bit of wall to stop a pusher ramming them into and then along a wall. Hey as my main robot is a pusher I'd love a way to challenge me more and make me need to control the opponent better. Though just to point out Stanley was never built to win, Stanley was only ever built to be robust and reliable. I was fed up of accelerant breaking down a lot so just chucked it together to have a secondary robot I could count on to just work without maintenance.

Though I still think AWS43 was my most enjoyable one yet with some good laughs and some great opponents. I think I was more nervous than I had ever been facing Void for the second time, I was certain that was my end of the road and would kill for a picture of my face at the end XD.
Last edited by Shakey on Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
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!
Psychostorm
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: The AWS43 Feedback Thread

Post by Psychostorm »

EpicentrE wrote: Less drop off is required to even the playing field between different designs and types of robots.
This is an often used quote so I will ask a question: Asides from the design of the robots, what advantage does the existing drop off give to any particular robot?
I put it to you all that it is none. Anyone can push an opponent off it, anyone can fall of it, anyone can fly off it. That is an even playing field.
EpicentrE wrote:In an arena with lots of drop-off, a pusher can, in many cases, if it has control of the other machine, just push it in whichever direction it happens to be facing and have a fairly high chance that it will lead to a victory, with little thought given to control.
Any direction? Half the arena is walled, thus stopping them. Half of the arena is open, thus drop off. Seems pretty even to me.Most robots can do that too.
EpicentrE wrote:In my mind, this does not encourage innovative pusher designs, nor does it encourage good driving. It encourages defensive, passive driving from opponents of pushers, being very careful to never be anywhere outside of the centre of the arena as they could lose in an instant, and encourages pushers to just drive straight towards opponents with little thought to direction or control as they are reasonably likely to win this way.
How people choose to drive is not the concern of any rules. It has place in entertainment but no place in sport.
EpicentrE wrote:Additionally, the increase in spinner power combined with the large drop-off means that horizontal spinners have all but completely disappeared from competition, with a very small amount of exceptions.
How many horizontal spinners exist is not the concern of any rules. It has place in entertainment but no place in sport.
EpicentrE wrote: To counter the point that may be raised, yes, spinners should be designed to be stable in their footing as much as possible and not fly wildly around the arena upon scoring a hit. However horizontal spinners will always have some kind of uncontrolled lateral movement upon scoring a hit, and both smaller arenas and less drop-off highly increase the chance that an act of aggression can lead to a loss.
For any design of robot, what happens to it is your responsiblity. If you drive a pusher off a drop off, if you flip yourself out of the arena, if you spin off as the result of a hit, it is your responsibility. You chose that design, you drove that robot. You made your bed, you lie in it.
EpicentrE wrote:I would very much like to see more horizontal spinners in competition as they are generally more damaging than vertical ones, and I think many people have become complacent in their choices of armour without the risks of suffering powerful horizontal blows. I'd also just like to see more of them because variety is good.

Additionally, I would personally not like to see additional rules of this type implemented. I would rather the rule was removed entirely and event organisers could innovate with their arena designs (with feedback from the community, of course), as I believe that this would lead to the most popular and fairest arena designs appearing at more events due to...call it natural selection, I suppose. The survival of the fittest (arenas), by Chantweight Darena. (I love terrible wordplay)
Or an increasing number of spinner owners close the drop off rule which may well be supported by a majority due a mass exodus of machines from the competition. Which would be bad for variety. Then we get the argument of why there are now so many flippers & change the rules to raise the arena walls to stop those easy OOTAs
EpicentrE wrote:I'll happily copy & paste this to a relevant committee thread when such a thing crops up, however I just didn't like the assertion that people wanted less drop-off because they were bad drivers.
That is an incorrect inference. I didn't assert that people wanted less drop-off because they were bad drivers. I said they fell off because of bad driving.

Things I have asserted (correctly or incorrectly, with or without bias) are:
The arena is already equal and this proposition proposes to make it unequal.
It is not the purpose of the rules nor the arena design to save people from their own incompetence or unfortunate circumstance.
It is not the purpose of the rules nor the arena design to favour any particular design of robot even they appear to be on the endangered robot list.
If everything will be exactly the same after, then what's the point in changing it?

Pushers will get built on mass because they are marginally cheaper than others, so will it be so for as long as it is a viable design. Spinners, as you say, will always rebound out of the arena unless unless there is wall for them to hit. Even with more walls, they can miss it & hop out. Disadvantaging the many pushers from the really hard task of the drop off for the gain of a few new spinners you like might hit a new wall and bounce back into submission.

Change the drop off, if you want. I genuinely don't care either way. Bring on the walls & horizontal spinners, I say. Just don't tell it's for equality That's just winding me up.
Post Reply