Rule Debates

Please post all questions and answers in here. This way people can easily see if someone else has the same problem.

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Post Reply
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer »

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:35 am "All subsequent parts of a clusterbot must be eliminated for that robot to be considered out, unless one of the components is a drone in which case the drone will only count as part of a cluster if it has made contact with the opponent before either robot is pushed off"
This would not be necessary though as in the drone section (which is necessary if additional restrictions are to be placed on them) it would be specifically documented that a drone which has not made contact with another machine should be considered out.

But there is an alternative, probably better approach: drones are allowed in any fashion, counted as full robots, contact rules etc all forgotten.

The fact is, if two or more drones were entered (bearing in mind it's ~30GBP per drone if built from scratch in accordance with existing rules, close enough to a full antweight), that entry would likely (at worst) take the competition 2 3 minute fights with rather exciting ways of attempting to beat a full antweight, in which case if they have been useless then they shall lose both decisions and the tournament continues on.

The cost of the drones would be astronomical if they were to be built to be competitive and so we are very unlikely to ever see it. That side of things would regulate itself as long as we maintain the ban on off the shelf drones (which is already in place anyway) due to the size limit and the cost.
Ocracoke wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:24 am Also, with a flying robot, what counts as "out of the arena"?
Touching the bottom of a pit, exactly the same as when spinners become airbourne.
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

Rules must cover all possible outcomes, however probable they may be. It's a question of ironing out any "this would be allowed but probably never going to happen" scenarios.

There are three options for rules on flying robots:

1) allow them however they come, as long as they follow all other AWS rulings (no off the shelf, hitting the bottom of the pit, no entanglement, etc etc) and give them the status of any other roller entry.

2) allow them without granting them status (so they would not count as a clusterbot partner and would not be allowed to enter on their own).

3) ban them outright.

To me, 1) is completely ridiculous. It opens up all sorts of loopholes, debates and confusion about who wins a fight and how, plus adds extra levels of confusion should different arenas be used. Also, the rules state that if no contact is made before one robot drives out, the match will be restarted. This could be an absolute nightmare with a drone.
Drones are allowed in Battlebots in a similar way to what I'm suggesting for 2). Nobody in Battlebots would try and claim victory in a fight if both robots were incapacitated but their drone was still mobile. Similarly, no robot with a drone partner is referred to as a clusterbot.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
Ocracoke
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:14 pm
Location: Somewhere on the Wirral
Contact:

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Ocracoke »

Touching the bottom of a pit, exactly the same as when spinners become airbourne.
The question was sort of meant in humour. ;) In arenas where there is a significant difference between the floored part of the arena and the polycarbonate wall (such as mine, where the floored area is 810mm squared as opposed to the arena walls, which cover 1200mm squared), flying robots technically have an advantage but I guess the no contact rule would cover the notion that a opponent can sit in that area which a roller cannot reach.
To me, 1) is completely ridiculous. It opens up all sorts of loopholes, debates and confusion about who wins a fight and how, plus adds extra levels of confusion should different arenas be used. Also, the rules state that if no contact is made before one robot drives out, the match will be restarted. This could be an absolute nightmare with a drone.
I am going to counter that with the fact that if a roboteer has entered a single flying robot or a cluster, it is up to them to know how to fight with it effectively and within the rules. I do agree that the no contact thing is going to (potentially) be a pain but again, I don't want to see the rules being too onerous to a specific form of mobility. Let them come, it'll all pan out in the wash. :D
Team Kaizen

AW: Amai, Ikari, Lafiel, Osu, Ramu
BW: Shu!, The Honey Badger
FW: Azriel
MW: Jibril, Kaizen
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

It doesn't work like that as far as rules are concerned. You can't make snap judgements on the day based on what shows up and what happens, they have to be all encompassing and not able to be exploited in silly ways. That's the whole point of having them.
The amount of scenarios where a drone could claim 'victory' in the rules against a proper opponent just by floating about is the stuff of nightmares for anyone interested in fairness or practicality or judging. The hobby is fighting robots and there is no way a drone in the box can be considered to be a decent fighter. Even the only guy who currently uses one admits that. Therefore they should not be considered as one.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
User avatar
Ocracoke
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:14 pm
Location: Somewhere on the Wirral
Contact:

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Ocracoke »

The amount of scenarios where a drone could claim 'victory' in the rules against a proper opponent just by floating about is the stuff of nightmares for anyone interested in fairness or practicality or judging.
In judging, surely the lack of any meaningful aggression would count against a flying robot in this context? Just floating around is something that would be noticed by all concerned and count against them.
Team Kaizen

AW: Amai, Ikari, Lafiel, Osu, Ramu
BW: Shu!, The Honey Badger
FW: Azriel
MW: Jibril, Kaizen
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

I don't mean judgement at 3 minutes. I mean judgement about whether the drone had contact, or left the arena, or lost in some significant way.
If a drone floats up the the ceiling on activate, gently clips the opponent on the way and then hovers over the pit zone, and the driver of the opponent accidentally drives out (happens to us all), you are saying that would be a victory for the drone? That's not a fight, that's just stupid. What if as the other robot drives out, the drone loses control and also crashes into the pit? What then? Drone wins cos it took longer to fall? Or drone flies up, clips opponent, refuses to descend and opponent refuses to move in any meaningful way because it can't do anything anyway? Wait til the clock runs out and drone wins cos its the only one that landed a 'hit'? Its nonsense. If its a clusterbot and both the main components are driven out, the guy who bought a drone along wins automatically because the drone is still "active"? Nobody would be happy to get knocked out of an AWS in such fashion. Its supposed to be a competition about who has the best design, strategy, driving ability, etc. Not about exploiting rules for ways of winning that barely register as a fight.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Rule Debates

Post by AntRoboteer »

There is always the issue with an ineffective botlet winning a fight without doing anything. Take Lemmings as an example; sometimes when Lemmings won it was a fair win, others it was a driving error or technical malfunction by the opponent on the very last botlet which meant that the opponent was counted out/in the pit while 1 sub 25g botlet was driving around in circles and claiming a victory.

Drones in Battlebots worked because I believe in all cases, the botlet with at least 55% of the weight (or something of the sort) was required to be in play in order to win a fight. That is why nobody won with a drone in Battlebots. No ~100kg drones were built, not even 55kg drones, not even close. That is why nobody would claim a victory like that.
DieGracefullyRobotics wrote: Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:18 am 2) allow them without granting them status (so they would not count as a clusterbot partner and would not be allowed to enter on their own).
Really don't agree with that at all. The issue there is the confusion element all over again. What does 'status' mean? How do we define it? Should this be applied to nanos in a cluster because they're nanos? Or fleaweights? Or should walkers be given benefits over rollers because they are walkers? All food for thought there; this could be applied to anything and yet is not due to the fact it would create unfair competition.

Robots are robots at the end of the day; they should all get equal status. Flying machines allow for more creativity than we have seen before. I doubt we have even scratched the surface of whats possible so banning them or reducing their status this early is a bad move. Restriction is effectively a ban in this case.

I see no reason for a rules change in this department. All we need is a formal typing up of what's currently in place (which has caused no problem in competition). I have had very few complaints about the use of the drone. It has caused a disturbance, yes, but so have many things such as EDF pushers which were all the rage a few years ago and they were left to their own devices to dwindle out rather than banning them.

Most people I have spoken to love the drone and wish for it to continue competing. Drones would not if they were demoted to a lower level.
User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Shakey »

The issue I have with drones is it's a robot that can make itself immune from the fight but still able to take a win. At least with Nano cluster partners you can always get to them in some way.

I could make a super light drone with some flappy thing solely to make contact, pin it to the roof and cheese my way to victory.
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
Ocracoke
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:14 pm
Location: Somewhere on the Wirral
Contact:

Re: Rule Debates

Post by Ocracoke »

A single contact does not make for a fight, I agree and anyone watching/judging the fight would also see that. However, I do see your point, you could have something rolled up in the flying robot, release it at the start of the fight to have a canvas and then pin it to the roof. Depends on wherever you'd call that entanglement though.

Ultimately, I think this requires exploring at more non-AWS events and review at a later date. I don't want to see creativity stifled but at the same time, I do see where DieGracefullyRobotics is coming from. Perhaps as a separate side event all together (so it is flying robot vs flying robot) it would work because the immunity factor is gone.
Last edited by Ocracoke on Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Team Kaizen

AW: Amai, Ikari, Lafiel, Osu, Ramu
BW: Shu!, The Honey Badger
FW: Azriel
MW: Jibril, Kaizen
User avatar
DieGracefullyRobotics
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:39 am

Re: Rule Debates

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics »

That weight limit rule applied to Robot Wars, not Battlebots. Drones were banned in Robot Wars.

Its nonsense to put a drone in the same category as a nano or fleaweight partner. Any robot can still attack a nano or fleaweight and the rules cover the possibile outcomes. A drone exploits them. And there currently ARE no rules on drones, so we are not suggesting "changing" them. They need writing, that's the point. A decision made on the spot at Ant Freeze does not constitute a rule.

If you are not happy with my idea of not giving them proper status then I would vote to ban them outright because they can't be governed properly by the other rules in place. Nanos, fleas, everything else you mentioned can. That's the difference.
I think you are arguing from the point of view of someone who uses a drone already rather than looking at what the issues actually are with them when it comes to competition.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.
Post Reply