Proposed rule changes 2015

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:35 pm

Totally don't agree that "the only significant change nanos have brought in is Lemmings". Half the clusters at the last event were just ants with 20g spare and a nano chucked in to qualify as a 4th. Rory even admitted that he was rather lazy doing that instead of fixing his walker, and when I tech checked Alex and Rory they were both able to choose which of their ants was going to cluster with a nano because they were all pretty light anyway. That wasn't happening a year ago.
I think people should be allowed their fourth when they go through an effort to qualify for it. That effort is no longer there with clusterbots. That's the change.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Shakey » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:38 pm

razerdave wrote:I guess the toy cars and such have been replaced with Nano's, but at least they're proper robots still, and can actually contribute to a fight (Slice to meet you's partner not included :P )


Awww.....
Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey:
AWS 44, 45, 49 & 51 Winner - Far too many robots to list!
I sell full Antweight Kits and Wheels!

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:10 am

I'd like to hear from a few more people who built specific clusters - Dan, Rhys, Alasdair, Andy...I know Dan wants to build a walker anyway and Andy has Kwejiboom to revert back to. Rhys is, well, rather busy with life at the moment! And Alasdair is a forum ghost.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

AntRoboteer
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby AntRoboteer » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:42 am

Right, just my votes here:

A) Yes, that's a real step in the right direction.
B) No way. I don't like the sound of limiting fights any more. Sometimes a good robot can pull a victory out of the bag later on in the match (I have been known to do so myself) even though the robot does not look particularly aesthetically pleasing or does not appear to be aggressive (perhaps due to low motor speed or other factors) and reducing the time available would limit opportunities to do so.
C) B sounds lovely to me. It would limit gigantic powerful robot and nano clusters for sure which will only be an improvement but also allow us builders who prefer to make a cluster as our fourth entry happy as well. Perfect! :-)

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby peterwaller » Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:21 am

I just posted this on the events page where some discussion of this was going on then noticed this and decided it was a better place to put it.
Is it just me or are people becoming more intolerant.
There seems to be more and more posts aimed at banning certain types of robot small toys, ducted fans and now clusters of dissimilar size.
Just because we don't like something if feel it is not within the spirit of the rules doesn't mean other people do.
I could argue that ducted fans can be beaten or that alsoran has on several occasions influenced the outcome of a fight but I just think unless there is some great compelling reason why a particular robot configuration completely dominates the whole AWS scene we should stop all these witch hunts (perhaps a little strong :wink: ) and just start enjoying the wide range of approaches and views people have.

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Shakey » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:36 am

I'd rather we leave the cluster rule as is as it isn't that bad really and if needed leave it up to EO's. But I don't see it making a huge change in the numbers of robots. Do people really have that much trouble pitting a nano?
Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey:
AWS 44, 45, 49 & 51 Winner - Far too many robots to list!
I sell full Antweight Kits and Wheels!

User avatar
Rapidrory
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Rapidrory » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:38 am

If you're driving it then yes :P
Rory Mangles - Team Mangler

Robots: Too Many...

NanoTwo antweight speed controllers. (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2128)

User avatar
razerdave
Posts: 1484
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby razerdave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:53 am

I think the issue with Nano parts to cluster could be argued:

They don't contribute a lot to the larger part in about 75% of cases (there are some where the nano has legitimately won a fight for its larger part)

They are a cheap way to win (Being that it could be buzzing around whilst you take out the biggest half and then drive off, leaving the cluster part, what most would not consider even a threat, the winner. Its the same argument against the toys I guess.

Pitting Nanos sucks because if its in a cluster, you can either drive off with the smaller part or leave yourself exposed to the larger part, which I guess is the point in a cluster, but when paired with a robot that could quite happily hold its own, its an added irritance.

These are just points that people may pivot on for not liking the nano clusterbot, I don't care either way. I don't want to change the cluster rule, I've changed my mind

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Hogi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:26 pm

1: yes.
2: yes.
3: i'll build to whatever rule is decided upon.
Featherweight under construction.

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

Team Hectic.

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby peterwaller » Fri Jul 10, 2015 2:32 pm

Perhaps if I had read the first page of this topic my post would have been more relavent.
A Yes as this is already implimented but I am still reluctant to ban types that some people enjoy.
B Yes the nano rules are still evolving and I think 60 mm is better.
C I am happy to change the fourth robot back to a walker only, as this might reduce entry lists, as long as the clusters can still be any size .

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:25 pm

Just to be clear, there has been NO talk of banning clusters, or disproportionate clusters (unless option B gets your vote). The debate here is whether they should still qualify as "worthy" enough for the fourth entry slot. Even if it is voted in that the 4th entry can only be a walker, the other three are perfectly within their rights to be clusters of any proportion, should the driver choose it. That's why I vote C and not B.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Occashokka » Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:29 pm

I'm not sure about limiting the 3 minutes as at the moment its the chink in the fans armour as they have to struggle to get it to last 3 minutes so when you fight one you know that if you can survive 2mins and 40 secs then their fan might lose power and it would be a shame to lose the challenge of making powerful things last the full time.(I apologise if this is just me being selfish and wanting people fans to die so they lose, after all I would say that, I don't own one)
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

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:03 pm

Actually Joel, I think that's the one coherent argument I've heard so far against the time change. Not just fanbots of course, but all robots will only have to be able to last 2mins instead of 3. That could create a shift towards more powerful or draining designs because they don't have to last 3mins IE Jim's spinner that only lasted minute and a half.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 2435
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby BeligerAnt » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:27 pm

As I said... beware of unintended consequences :P
Gary, Team BeligerAnt

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

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:37 pm

There's nothing wrong with trying things out Gary. And sorry, but isn't the POINT of these discussions to weed out unintentional consequences? You may as well say "beware of debate".
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39


Return to “2014 AWS Rules Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest