Rule wish list

A discussion forum for proposed changes to the AWS rules

Moderators: administrator, BeligerAnt, petec

User avatar
peterwaller
Posts: 3697
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Aylesbury Bucks
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by peterwaller » Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:47 am

I don't think it is anything personal Dave it is probably at least partly due to the fact that you are more often the one trying out new ideas.
I freely admit when Combatant came out at about 100gms I saw the opertunity to run it as a cluster, mostly so I could still run 3 more rollers, but it had also crossed my mind that if Combatant flew out of the arena whilst disabling it opponent which is a way I hate to lose I would still win if alsoran was still going.
By the way RazorDave they both had nametags with both cluster and botlet names.

Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:22 pm

Oh, I don't think its personal, Peter, don't worry. You were thinking along the same lines as me for CombatCluster anyway. However, I'm still waiting for someone to actually give a reason why a clusterbot should be knocked out due to some weight calculation, rather than the easiest way to police it, which is to say "its not out until you beat all parts". Clusterbots don't have any advantage over any other type of entry, so why are people trying to develop a specific rule that makes them easier to knock out? People on here have said they want it to be 50% by weight, or 2/3rds by weight, but not actually given a reason why it should be like that.

So I'd like to add this. If there is going to be a rule dictating that you can beat a clusterbot due to some weight or percentage ruling, then its only fair that this rule is applied to all types of entry, not just clusters
For example, if a normal 2wd ant loses a wheel, it is out, regardless of how well it can still move. Or, even stupider, if your ant loses 2/3rds of its weight during, say, a battle with a spinner, it is out, even if its still mobile. An unlikely scenrio, sure, but its the only fair way of doing it. You cant just create a rule for clusters and no one else!
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Simon Windisch » Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:44 pm

It's a good point Dave, although we're not trying to create a rule for clusters, we're trying to deal with a rule that is already in place.

Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:02 pm

To which I am saying that that rule should be removed. It doesn't make sense to have it, and changing it to some other combination of weight or percentage doesn't change the issue.

Like I say, I still haven't found a coherent argument from anyone who wants to change it. The closest thing I've found is people saying what me and Peter did is not "in the spirit" of the competition. Which is not a coherent argument. I could mount exactly the same argument that I don't believe using shapeways is "in the spirit" of the competition, but I'd never press for a specific rule to ban it, cos that's just silly.

So, I ask again. What EXACTLY are people objecting to that means we can't just use the rule "a clusterbot is only out if ALL its components are disposed of"? Which is simple, fair, and beyond any debate at the outcome.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Simon Windisch » Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:40 pm

Like I say Dave, a good point.

Moving back to the other points, can anyone with antweight tech checking experience say what exactly is checked?

I've read opinions on this thread that my proposal
5. Add a rule 5k to tell the event organiser which rules are to be included in the tech check i.e (2a) weight (2b) & (2n) size (2e) switch or link (2k) failsafe (2r) name
would suggest to some tech checkers to check less than they currently do, and another suggestion that as some robots don't failsafe that this shouldn't be checked for.

What I was proposing is that we outline minumum checks, in line with other competition guidelines. For instance it could be argued that the rule
5c) Contestants must obey the event organiser at all times, or be disqualified.
is not needed as people would do so anyway, nevertheless it's there.

On the point of metrication, we could agree to change the cube from 101.6mm squared to 100mm squared from some future date (like Jan 1st 2015) giving people plenty of time to rebuild, or just naturally evolve to the slightly smaller size.

Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:03 pm

When I have done tech checking, I admit it has just been weight and size. However, I'd be happy to add the name tag and to check whether to see if they have a switch or removeable link/way of unplugging (though I don't know the last time there was an ant that couldn't do this, maybe it goes without saying?)

We seem to have done ok without failsafes up until now. It is my understanding that most 2.4ghz TXs and RXs failsafe now anyway? When was the last time (if ever) that an ant caused an issue due to losing radio contact and not being able to failsafe?
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39

User avatar
Simon Windisch
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Simon Windisch » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:35 pm

Ok, so we've got one person saying that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because most robots failsafe and another person saying that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because some robots don't failsafe.

Is anyone saying that that we shouldn't tech check failsafes because robots are safe without them?

razerdave
Posts: 1527
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: Rule wish list

Post by razerdave » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:52 pm

Only issue I ever had with failsafing was Baby Hell and Stewie on 40MHz, Got stabbed and Stewie Nom'ed my finger.

Pete: Didn't realise your cluster had the cluster name too, I will bear in mind to have mine on in future, but this last AWS was not my usual entry :P.

Dave: I'd like to change my original thoughts on the cluster rule. You should have to take out all the parts, I agree. I think what a lot of people are finding hard to accept that because that little car was buzzing around, your cluster won even though the much larger part had been taken out, and that it could have been an ant in its own right. The americans do it with the HW's/SHW's, have one massive part and 1 or 2 smaller parts that won't scratch a damn thing.

But, TBH, thats the rules. I'm not a huge fan of the 'Antweight and little car' types of cluster, but thats irrelevent.

Simon: Its hard to determin. Robots of any size can be danergous under no control (accidently nom'ed fingers, blades, etc). I'd rather robots be failsafe checked just so we know which ones need to be kept turned on when taken out.

User avatar
Shakey
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:38 pm
Location: Reading

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Shakey » Mon Nov 14, 2011 9:28 pm

I think at the very least spinners should have the failsafe tested to see if the blade stops when signal is lost.
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!

Bodge Job
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Rule wish list

Post by Bodge Job » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:13 pm

I think, for a clusterbot to be eliminated, all of the botlets have to be out, or they loss there advantage, and even if they do put a nearly ant weight and a mini rc car, it would be no harder to fight than a normal ant weight, as you have a slight advantage over the nearly any weight, so you could defet it more easily, and how hard is it to push a little rc car out?

Locked