Increasing numbers

[DieGracefullyRobotics]

Hi gang.
This one is a slightly tricky one but a good one to address sooner rather than later. If robot numbers continue an upward trend for AWS attendance, we will eventually run out of time in a day. AntLog was set to 128 robots max a few year's back as a "this'll never happen" safety limit...it is now being increased again. 98 robots competed at AWS55 and we finished in good time. But we had a fair number of drop-outs, plus I know of a fair few competitors who couldn't make it. With teams planning new robots all the time, it is safe to assume we could easily top out 128 soon. So we need to talk about controlling numbers relative to time in the day.

I've collected together several ways of doing it.
1) The EO sets a max robot limit at the start of sign ups and refuses anyone after that.
2) If numbers increase to unmanageable levels, all teams with 4 entries will be asked to drop to 3 to allow for other teams to enter.
3) The entry limit is dropped to 3 per team in general.
4) Two arenas run battles simultaneously if the numbers get too high to cut times down.
5) The 'off-the-shelf' rule is expanded to include kitbots and ready-built/un-unique ants.

Obviously, each one of these is fraught with issues and can be objected to. Personally, I really hate 1) and 5) for example. But it's something that we all need to consider. Maybe it'll never happen, but it's looking likely that it might.

So, rather than open up debate on why these options suck (they all suck in multiple ways, we know), I'd like to hear how people would be willing to best compromise. Would you be happy to do any of these if it meant someone else could join in? Does anyone have any further suggestions for how it could be done? What's the best way to be the most inclusive whilst acknowledging the limitations the event naturally produces?

PLEASE DON'T USE THE THREAD TO ARGUE WHY AN OPTION IS RUBBISH, THEY ALL ARE, WE KNOW. JUST POSITIVE COMPROMISE PLEASE!

Floor is open.

[voorsk]

How about nominating a robot as a reserve during signup?

ie: still allow 4, but if numbers get too high, all the reserves get kicked (can't really kick one at random, as that might be deemed unfair) . oor.. it's set to 3 plus a reserve, and if turnout is low, the reserve gets in?

[peterwaller]

Of those offered I prefer option 2 limiting the entry to 3 per team, even those this would effect me the most, but at AWS55 that would only reduce the entry by 6 robots.
Another possibility would be to count a cluster bot as an entry for each driver but that could be difficult when the cluster comes up against one of the drivers own robots.

[DieGracefullyRobotics]

I like the reserve idea, even though it would most likely mean a lot of the walker/cluster/funbot entries may drop out. As Peter says, it would have only lost 6 at the last event but I suppose it could start at 4-teams and then work down to 3-teams on huge numbers.

The cluster idea doesn't really decrease numbers. Yin and Yang contained its cluster within its own team anyway, for example. And I believe the drivers Shakey chose for Wedge Wedge Wedge all had slots available on their teams anyway, so most clusters would still be valid under that new proposal.

[razerdave]

I would be more inclined to back option 2; it allows new people to fill in gaps left by people with (most likely) more opportunities to win by virtue of having 3 robots still.

[peterwaller]

I take the point about losing the clusters and walkers maybe we should make it 2 rollers and a walker or cluster.

[DieGracefullyRobotics]

I would be happy with that in theory, Peter. But I guess a lot of teams who have developed 3 very good rollers already would be hard done by.

For the record, I'm for point 2 as well. I also think the 2 arena thing has potential for cutting down time but adds an extra huge challenge for any EO and we struggle to find them in general anyway.

[voorsk]

two tables would mean two sets of judges, wouldn't it?

i recall that it was pretty tricky just getting one set, so maybe the rules on who can judge could be slackened if two tables are used?

[DieGracefullyRobotics]

I agree, though there aren't really any rules for who can be a judge, as long as they are impartial to those involved in the fight. The judges at AWS55 were 3 veterans and 2 new guys.

What we need is clear judges criteria. Then anyone capable of using the criteria can be a judge. It's another thing we're discussing on committee.

[GeorgeR]

I think option 2/reserve system sounds the best bet.

I'm not a fan of 3 or 5. I like the idea of 4 but think it would be hard to implement for EO's who already have a tough job. I don't mind 1, but think 2 is the much fairer system.