Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

If Fleaweights are just too big...

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

User avatar
limpet
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:18 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by limpet »

So is it 60mm officially then?
–-----------------------------

For AntFreeze
https://www.facebook.com/AntFreeze/

For my robots etc.
https://www.facebook.com/13Robotics
Ants, Fleas, Beetles, Feathers & Heavies
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

Now I know Nanos aren't much of a thing still and we're still thinking of ways of encouraging them.

I still have plans to build a nano arena, new job and moving put a temporary hold on that though. Another point of discussion between myself and Rory was to simply totally eliminate the size limit, the thinking behind it is that in all honestly the weight alone is limiting enough and we want to encourage more nanos to be built. It also provides a different edge to the class compared to other insect classes. The weight being restrictive enough to stop it being too out of hand in practice.

The move to 60mm did help quite a few more ants appear and I think relaxing this rule altogether plus a dedicated arena could properly help them to find their feet.

Thoughts?
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!
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

I remember putting forward the idea before that nanos and fleas should both simply follow the same rules as ants and we just use the 4" cube for all, with the weight being the main restriction, but it wasn't met with much enthusiasm at the time.
I'd be all for it personally. It would mean event organisers would only need one cube too. But I've never been able to get the hang of nanos anyway.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer »

Sounds interesting.

I definitely think a new dedicated nano arena would help things along. The current arena really is very large even for ants but the issue tends to be the nanos often have no chance of catching up to one another.

If you are going to lift the size restriction, you have to consider that in theory a nano Robox could come into existence which is near 12 inches by 12 inches (roughly the size of the current full size Robox) and still qualify within the rules.

Currently, the main arena is large enough for Robox to move around in (just :D ) but a smaller, dedicated nano arena would limit possibilities of anything like that.

Of course, this is a bit of an edge case, but it's not a stretch to say that it would be possible and would have damaging effects on competition in general if the arena is too small. There would be no restriction on current size nanoweights with tons of acetate all around them filling up the 4 inch cube either which would have a similar effect. Hence, worst case is what you would have to plan for in terms of arena size and the ideal candidate for that right now would be Pete's current arena.

So, what it comes down to is that a new smaller arena and a cube size change would not go hand in hand.

Personally, the size restriction has never been an issue at all for me or nano builders in general and the arena size has proved to be problematic in some cases (the 7 minute long nano fight at Ant Freeze is an example, bearing in mind that the Ant Freeze arena is actually smaller than Pete's arena). The 60mm cube really helped, but we see diminishing returns as the cube size increases as nanoweight components must be tiny anyway. I would propose keeping the size restriction the same.

However, a new arena would add a new dynamic to the nanos and I believe having the nanoweights as a dedicated competition in a separate arena would make the class infinitely more appealing.

On a side note, the fleaweight cube restriction is an issue and prevents fleaweights being built for sure. This is because, unlike the nanos, fleaweight components are often antweight components, just with thinner armour used for the chassis or lack of moving weapon. I would propose increasing the fleaweight cube size to 4 inches as there are no arena change concerns with fleaweights and it's about time they became more accessible to all.
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

You make a good point about something like a nanoweight Roblox. At the same time though the size restrictions ARE something I hear a lot of as a barrier to nanos on top of the weight limit. While nanos are meant to be a challenge at the moment it feels the size limit is serving to pigeonhole designs and enforcing too oppressive of a restriction, especially when active weapons are trying to be incorporated in the robots. I'm still of the mind that there should be an increase though maybe not a totally unrestricted. My concern is aiming to make the class actually accessible so we can start encouraging builders into it. The aim being to be able to offer some more space for innovating designs and trying different challenging things which was one of the reasons we drove the class into existence.

"Of course, this is a bit of an edge case, but it's not a stretch to say that it would be possible and would have damaging effects on competition in general if the arena is too small" I more see the arena size as one of the design restrictions in the same way robots aren't too fast as there's only so much arena to run in. I don't consider it something damaging to the competition if it's only affecting a single competitor that is quite literally too big to move in the arena. :P

One of the reasons we moved to 60mm initially was to allow certain components to be accommodated without forcing designs, now there was good success with this but I feel there's still some ways to go.

I know I intend to ensure that my arena is capable of slightly larger nanos than currently to allow us to at least experiment with the rules to find the effect. Often I think the sport, especially a fledgling weight class like nanos, gets too bogged down in debates and 'every scenario' rules preventing some of the actual fun of it all coming through. I do have every intention of allowing slightly larger nanos into my arena even if just to simply see the results rather than lock the class into generic designs until it is too big of a class to change it down the line.

It was at the end of the day an arbitrarily decided limit post a few beers to impose and I don't think we should stick with it simply because it was the first number to appear.

Also please take the flea size debate to a new thread, I actually agree with it but don't want to have 2 things being discussed in this one.
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!
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer »

All completely fair as far as I can see.

You make a good point about the active weapons being restricted by the cube. I tend to think of my nano (Muffin) as a tough pushing machine whereas actually if it were to be classified by anyone else, it would be classified as a grabber due to the claw on top. However, due to cube restrictions, the claw isn't long enough to actually grab anything now that I think about it. A larger cube would help and I'm sure in other cases it would be useful to have a little extra breathing room also.

So yes, I would agree that a larger cube would allow for more creativity.

I would propose that the nanoweight arena size in mm is posted clearly either in the rules or at least on this forum.

This way, builders know that, while they can go into 4 inch cube territory, they need to be careful about manoeverability. So the risk of entering an absolutely massive machine which doesn't even fit properly in the arena is entirely on the builder and not the organiser's problem as the builders were given advance notice.

In that case, I would support the move to a larger cube and a new arena.
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

I'll get numbers finalised when the arena comes into existence and work out a way of getting it properly listed, maybe the full 4" cube is too much but certainly an aim for the 3" cube seems reasonable.
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!
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

3" cube for nanos and a move up to 4" for fleas? Sounds like a decent enough proposition to at least try out.

I agree with everything being said about arena size vs robot size. Guess the solution for that is to set the arena size before the robot one, as suggested. IE, you're free to build a big nano but it would probably hurt you more than anyone else if you can't move it around the box.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer »

Just posted a follow up in Dave's rules thread here: http://www.robotwars101.org/forum/viewt ... =10&t=2720
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by Shakey »

"The proposed solution is to increase size limits for Fleaweights and Nanoweights. I have had a rethink and believe they should stay as they are as particularly in the Nano class. The reasoning behind this is that the competition has been held multiple times with certain restrictions. Unfortunetely, a change now would actually invalidate quite a few competitions which have been limited in that way. The smaller cubes are possible to adhere to with some creative thinking."

I don't see any way in which previous competitions are invalidated by any change such as this, we held competitions under the 50mm rule and when we moved to 60mm nothing became invalid. Also competition is a strong word from just having a single melee labelled as an NWS really!

The problem I see is that it's the boring kind of creative thinking, it's creative thinking to fit the restriction not to actually be creative.

I'm currently rolling with every intention to build my arena to accomodate a 75mm cube rule on nanos and is my intention to run that rule.
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!
Post Reply