Proposed rule changes 2015

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

Moderators: administrator, BeligerAnt, petec

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 rule changes 2015

Post by 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: 1083
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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.....
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 rule changes 2015

Post by 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: 439
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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: 3699
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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: 1083
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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?
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!

Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by Rapidrory » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:38 am

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

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc

razerdave
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by Hogi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:26 pm

1: yes.
2: yes.
3: i'll build to whatever rule is decided upon.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3699
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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 .

Post Reply