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
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 .

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 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: 433
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:34 pm
Location: Stroud,Gloucestershire

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by 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

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 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: 2464
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Post by BeligerAnt » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:27 pm

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

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 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

Post Reply