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
razerdave
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby razerdave » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:09 pm

That last sentence, I'm glad someone said it.

Hogi
Posts: 946
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Hogi » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:29 pm

although i would build a walker if the rules changed so that clusters couldn't be a fourth entry, i would much rather not see ALL clusters consigned to the first three entries. fair enough make a rule against a 125 gram ant put with a random nano but i don't think it's really necissary to ban all clusters from the fourth entry. i mean: all three botlets of my cluster are specifically designed and constructed to be an antweight clusterbot. Transit ant has the wide double tyres to compensate for the weight disadvantage it has when fighting a full weight ant. naughty penguin has very thick armour and a fast drive system to cope with fighting ants and this too shall fail ( the part that is a nanoweight ) also has armour that is thicker than most of the other nanos for the purpose of being able to cope with a hit from an antweight spinner. that is what distinguishes the penguins from other clusterbots. i'm not having a go, but my main point is: it took me a great deal of time, money and effort to build a propper antweight clusterbot. it's the same deal with warhorses, termite cluster and a few others. it just doesn't seem fair to me to relegate clusters from the fourth entry when there are those of us that expend just as much time and effort into building them as others do building walkers. for this reason i would propose that we simply ban the use of nanoweight qualifying robots in clusterbots. it would still allow people to build a cluster comprising of a big part and a small part/s however it would insist that the smaller part was constructed for the specific purpose of being a botlet of an antweight clusterbot.

sorry for the really long post by the way. it's just i'd been thinking about it and i thought it best to make my views known.
Featherweight under construction.

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

Team Hectic.

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Shakey » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:38 pm

Fite me m8 is built as an ant fighter first and a nanoweight second. I put a tonne of effort into custom gearboxes for the drive and working on the grabber to help keep aggression on ants. It's naive to say a nanoweight cluster didn't have the nanoweight part built specifically for the purpose of being an ant clusterbot. The only reason it didn't come in as a cluster was because it's intended partner (ROFLSTOMP) came in 4g over the target. Where do you draw the line between specially built cluster that happens to be a nano and a intended nano.I also have a CAD for an even more effective ant killer nano that would pose a significant threat in the arena.
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots:
AWS 44, 45, 49 & 51 Winner - Far too many robots!

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 9:52 pm

I think the debate has probably reached saturation. I'd like to get back to the simplicity of it.

So, I think we should go back to the "4th entry on a team must be a walker" ruling. Clusters of all kinds will still be allowed but will have to be included as part of the main 3.

If you agree, type agree. If you disagree, type disagree. Completely up to you which you want to vote for. Then we'll see where we're at.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Shakey » Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:58 pm

Disagree
Nuts And Bots - For all your components and ready built antweights!

Alex Shakespeare - Team Shakey / Nuts And Bots:
AWS 44, 45, 49 & 51 Winner - Far too many robots!

User avatar
teamocean
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby teamocean » Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:20 pm

Disagree
Will Thomas
Team Shock
www.shockbots.co.uk

User avatar
Rhys
Posts: 992
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Caerphilly, South Wales
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Rhys » Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:08 pm

Wow, that escalated quickly, I didn't even get to put my votes in before the whole agree/disagree posts...

For the record:
1) None of my business as I don't build them, but I prefer the 50mm limit as it creates a nice differentiation between weight classes.
2) Yes. The 3 minute time limit is a real pain. The vast majority of them are just cluster botlets waiting to be put out of their misery, very few good fights seem to go the full 3 minutes. And at the event I ran we had a few 'Judges decisions', and people didn't agree, but as someone else said, they did respect the decisions.
3) B or C... Probably leaning towards C. I like building clusters, but it's very frustrating to see people just exploiting the loophole to get an extra roller in. I'd only like to see clusters eligible if they are of equal weight. eg, 2 x 75g botlets, 3 x 50g botlets. I know it's not in the rules, but my own ethos is that a cluster bot should have a common theme/design. The whole point is that it's two parts of the same robot, not just ant two robots thrown together. I think banning them from the fourth slot will mean more clusters follow this route in future, as they will be built because somebody actually wants a cluster, not just to exploit a loophole in the rules. This also plays into my hands slightly as my next cluster was going to be a walker anyway. :P

So... Agree.
Image

Hogi
Posts: 946
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Hogi » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:09 am

disagree.
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 rule changes 2015

Postby Remote-Controlled Dave » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:26 am

Yeah, sorry Rhys. After speaking to everyone at the event they said the one thing they hate is debates going on and on without anyone making a conclusion, so I'm just trying to stay on it.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

Lincoln
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Olney, Milton keynes

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby Lincoln » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:06 am

agree

playzooki
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:34 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby playzooki » Sat Jul 11, 2015 7:57 am

Disagree

AntRoboteer
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby AntRoboteer » Sat Jul 11, 2015 8:56 am

Disagree.

User avatar
razerdave
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby razerdave » Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:03 am

Disagree.

User avatar
EpicentrE
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby EpicentrE » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:02 am

Agree
Scott Fyfe-Jamieson, Captain of Epic Robotics. Champion of AWS38/41/42.
http://www.epicrobotics.co.uk

User avatar
joey_picus
Posts: 1136
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:51 pm
Location: Lancaster, Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Proposed rule changes 2015

Postby joey_picus » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:12 am

Agree
Joey McConnell-Farber - Team Picus Telerobotics - http://picus.org.uk/ - @joey_picus
"These dreams go on when I close my eyes...every second of the night, I live another life"


Return to “2014 AWS Rules Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest