Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

If Fleaweights are just too big...

Moderators: petec, administrator, BeligerAnt

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3605
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by peterwaller » Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:51 am

I think Tom has hit the nail on the head I think Nanos are great and have around 4 or 5 but the fact you only get one fight with one robot tends to put me off building more. I am not sure how practical it would be to run two events at one time but as long as the AWS took priority it might be worth a try.
Also we could possibly run it before the start of the AWS while scrutineering and the draw are being done.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:27 am

atticp wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:30 am
One of the main factors I see for not building a nano is the ratio of effort vs number of fights. It is a lot of effort to build a nano for 1 fight tagged on the end of an AWS. If there was a separate nano arena and a NWS was run as double elimination or a league system in parallel with the AWS then there might be some more interest.
That's precisely what I was thinking.

I know a cube increase would settle quite a few issues here but I'm not sure if that's headed in the right direction.

I would propose that we have (for the first time since early 2016 I believe) a proper Nanoweight World Series event; not a single melee but structured double elimination competition. Make sure this gets advertised. For example, if Chris were to run this at AWS 55 it would be advertised on the events page that there is definitely going to be a full Nanoweight competition, standard team rules (as in 3 rollers, 1 walker/cluster). Ideally, this would be in a dedicated arena but if not, we shall have to make do. With 2 machines only in there, they've got to catch each other at some point. Then, we would assess the quality of the fights and the robots themselves; are they restricted in the way Alex mentions they are? We can only tell when we have a reasonable number competing. When a final assessment from real data has taken place, then we can decide on whether to raise the cube limit.

How does that sound to everyone? Not ruling out a cube change but postponing until we have some real data to go on.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:44 am

Maybe if we offer a dedicated competition and see if the weight classes grow that way with the current parameters, then if they remain rather stagnant try some invigorating rule tweaks?

Running competitions at the same time as an AWS has rather obvious issues but it's certainly something that we've done in the past without much trouble, especially with fleaweights. If a separate arena can be sorted then it is usually pretty easy to sort. It does add extra strain on an event organiser though (and volunteers are already pretty scarce on that front). Plus people like Harry who like to film everything for record.

The only other thing I'd like to flag up is nanos/fleas that take part in the AWS as part of clusters as well as in their own tournament. That's a problem, whether the tournament is held before, after, or alongside the AWS. If you rely on your nano for your AWS cluster and it is damaged in the nano competition, for example, it effects both. I think the only way to sort that is to either say that a specific robot will only be applicable for one tournament (which may actually increase creativity again for the "4th slot" antweight robots), or do the dedicated competition after the main AWS with whoever still has a robot to enter. I realise both these options come with their own issues but it has to be addressed.

Side note - Hi Tom! You were a big inspiration of mine back in the day. I seemed to start just as you stopped. I was thrilled to see Angus in particular back in the arena recently. Hope to finally get to meet you at an event soon.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:11 am

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:44 am
The only other thing I'd like to flag up is nanos/fleas that take part in the AWS as part of clusters as well as in their own tournament. That's a problem, whether the tournament is held before, after, or alongside the AWS. If you rely on your nano for your AWS cluster and it is damaged in the nano competition, for example, it effects both.
Agreed, it would affect the builder's chances of being competitive. However, I think this is (as it has always been) the builder's decision of whether or not to take a risk. Generally, running the fleas and nanos after the main event solves this as everyone knows what exactly they have at the time and can be a calculated judgement.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:21 am

Builder's discretion doesn't always work. If someone has to withdraw a cluster from the main event because one of its parts has been written off somehow it can cause issues.

I agree that running the competitions after the main AWS fixes this but then everyone entering the nano and flea events has to conceed that the competition will be subject to the timing of the main event.

Or, they can run alongside the main event in a dedicated arena with plenty of time for a full tournament, but a rule must then be implemented that any particular robot can only compete in one competition.

Either/or.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:59 am

DieGracefullyRobotics wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:21 am
Builder's discretion doesn't always work. If someone has to withdraw a cluster from the main event because one of its parts has been written off somehow it can cause issues.
That's true.

I guess the only way to do this is for the event organiser to decide where priorities lie. If there is a flea/nanoweight competition planned, the organiser would detail when that would be.

If it's during the AWS main event then robots would of course only be entered into 1 of the 2 competitions. That makes complete sense.

If it's after the AWS main event then the robots remaining could have entered into the AWS first without affecting things.

I don't think people would be too keen on entering nanos/fleas during the AWS main event as they take up space for battery charging and additional preparation which most will dedicate to their antweights. Repair time would be limited for antweights also as the drivers would have to be ready to drive the fleaweights (maybe they would have an antweight fight at the same time) and the organisational overhead would be too much and delays would be huge.

Therefore, after the main competition would be far better as these complications would no longer exist plus everyone who doesn't have a nano or flea would be watching wanting to get in on the action next time; it works in all kinds of ways but only if there's a fully structured tournament.

User avatar
UserFriendly
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:52 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by UserFriendly » Mon Apr 16, 2018 11:24 pm

peterwaller wrote:
Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:51 am
I think Tom has hit the nail on the head I think Nanos are great and have around 4 or 5 but the fact you only get one fight with one robot tends to put me off building more. I am not sure how practical it would be to run two events at one time but as long as the AWS took priority it might be worth a try.
Also we could possibly run it before the start of the AWS while scrutineering and the draw are being done.
I’ve loved the idea of making even tinier robots such as a nano or flea (and the way someone goes round asking if people have fleas :wink: ) however, most AWSs are a 3 hour drive each way, and we can’t wait around for another competition. So for me, the issue of whether to make a Nano or Flea has been nothing to do with the challenge of doing so (that’s the bit I love!), but more to do with its timing/prominence. I’d favour pre-AWS fights to post-AWS fights, or how about lunch break NWS?
Andy B - Team UserFriendly
Reading Cybernetics Graduate 1996
Trying not to take Antweights too seriously. I think I'm failing.
First AWS was 46.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:07 am

Again, the problem with a pre-AWS or lunch break tournament is that a lot of nanos and fleas also compete in the AWS in some form. So if they are doing OK in the AWS then get written off in a lunchtime tournament, or before the start and have to pull out, it effects the AWS too. These are all issues we've had in the past.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3605
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by peterwaller » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:08 am

That can be solved by only allowing any robot to only enter one event.
My nano alsoran only goes in the AWS event, as part of my cluster, and my lemming did likewise when Iemmings ran as a group I always kept separate nanos for their own event.

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

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by DieGracefullyRobotics » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:10 am

If people are happy with an either/or rule, I'd be happy to run a dedicated nano and flea series alongside our AWS in October. We'd need a separate arena but there's a lot of time to sort that out.
Dave
Die Gracefully Robotics - Barely Even a Proper Team.

AntRoboteer
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: Revision of Nanoweight Cube Size

Post by AntRoboteer » Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:49 pm

Whilst it would be nice to continue on as we are, think you're right; the best way to save the smaller weight classes is to have dedicated competitions with access for all. That does in fact mean that an either/or rule would be the only way. I for one would be happy with that and would just have to build a second nano to compensate (which is fine).

Post Reply