Proposed addition to rules

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

Moderators: petec, administrator, BeligerAnt

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
Hogi
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Hogi » Sat Nov 15, 2014 7:44 am

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.
Featherweight under construction.

Antweight to build list: 4Wd lifter, new clusterbot, secret project, walker of some description.

Team Hectic.

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

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:01 am

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: 365
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby AntRoboteer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:09 am

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: 944
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Hogi » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:40 am

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.
Featherweight under construction.

Antweight to build list: 4Wd lifter, new clusterbot, secret project, walker of some description.

Team Hectic.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby AntRoboteer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:33 pm

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.

Hogi
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Hogi » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:46 pm

me neither, which is why i proposed to make both fleas fit in the antweight cube together rather than agreeing that they should be banned completely.

as far as i'm concerned any cluster whether it is 2 fleas, light ant and rc toy or purpose built comes under the deffinition of the clusterbot robot type ( a robot composed of more than one seperate parts ) and therefore any of those designs is valid.
Featherweight under construction.

Antweight to build list: 4Wd lifter, new clusterbot, secret project, walker of some description.

Team Hectic.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby AntRoboteer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:51 pm

Absolutely - you are spot on there!

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

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Sat Nov 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Dan, clusterbots are checked whether they fit in a four inch cube together, even one made of two fleas. They get no advantage. It is right that, because a fleaweight must fit into a 3" cube for the FWS, that it is almost impossible that two together won't fit in the 4" cube, but it is still checked at sign up.
Getting the thread back on track, I don't think there is any reason to alter the rules we currently run to, though I would still like to see a addition that, if you are helping someone else drive their cluster, you should drive the 'lesser' part of it (where a lesser part is clearly indentifiable).
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

AntRoboteer
Posts: 365
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby AntRoboteer » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:12 pm

That is the way to do it- nothing wrong with that at all. Maybe the 'lesser' part of the cluster should be judged on weight (more than 10g less than the other botlet) for easy identification of which driver should be driving which botlet and whether or not it is giving somebody an unfair advantage or not.

Hogi
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Hogi » Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:31 pm

agreed. this proposal gets my vote.
Featherweight under construction.

Antweight to build list: 4Wd lifter, new clusterbot, secret project, walker of some description.

Team Hectic.

Occashokka
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:34 pm
Location: Stroud,Gloucestershire

Re: Proposed addition to rules

Postby Occashokka » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:47 pm

BeligerAnt wrote:Everyone seems to be ignoring the existing rules:
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.


I agree and I don't see why this should be altered to say that all drivers must be in the team except those driving lesser halves of cluster bots
Team Badger
Has a 3d printer now yay
-£4.82+VAT (intact)
-cool modulated printed thingy
-not yet built nasty mean spinnt thingy

I'm gonna build something huge and stupid, try and stop me :P


Return to “2014 AWS Rules Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest