2015 AWS Rule Debate?

All things antweight

Moderators: BeligerAnt, petec, administrator

Post Reply
Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Rapidrory »

Just as something to throw into the mix: One of the main points of having the 4th team member as a walker or cluster is to encourage some creativity in those who are keen enough to have more than three ants. However most people (myself included) just cluster a Nano or similarly tiny bot with an underweight Ant, or cluster two fleas much more often than actually design a custom cluster bot. If the 4th team member had to be a walker, then clusters would still be fine, but people would have to branch out and become more creative in their designs to fill their team. I don't know how many full teams there actually are at present, but if it gets to the point where there are getting too many ants for an AWS to be held in a day, then it could contribute a reduction in numbers, but either way it would certainly drive some more creative ideas, as currently there's no real incentive to build a walker (apart from the extra weight allowance I guess) if you can just make an easy cluster.. Not suggesting that this needs to be implemented, it's just an idea I had..
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

You're not the only one to say it Rory, and it did used to be that way, but no one really built walkers back then either. I also think its easy to forget about certain entries when discussing this rule. For every lazy clusterbot, there is a Salt and Pepper or a Warhorses that are innovative, and for every great walker like Kwejiboom, there is a Zoink or a MeanGardenPot that walk but aren't particularly competitive (no offense meant, I love those robots).
Removing the cluster rule may not increase creativity or decrease numbers, it may simply increase mundane walker fights because people are having to build them!
The best way to increase innovation is to make something innovative, regardless of how well it may do in competition, but not everyone is willing to make such sacrifices.
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
User avatar
BeligerAnt
Posts: 1872
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Brighton
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by BeligerAnt »

I think it's a valid point Rory, and somewhat linked to the off-the-shelf debate.
Back in the 40MHz and NiMH days it was very difficult to build anything below about 100g, so a fleaweight or a cluster was a bit of a challenge.

Originally the 'team' rule was 3 + 1 walker but this got changed (for reasons that have now drifted off into the mists of time!) to "walker or cluster".

Maybe now it's time to change that rule back?

Note this would *not* preclude clusters. In fact, as the rules stand it is perfectly acceptable to enter a team of 4 clusters (or 4 walkers for that matter!)

As time and technology have moved on it has become much easier to build within the 150g weight limit, and it's not much more difficult or expensive to build a flea or even a nano. It's also easy to buy a cheap 30-50g R/C toy to make a "cluster". However, it does still take some skill and determination to build a walker.
Gary, Team BeligerAnt
Rapidrory
Posts: 1160
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Rapidrory »

I think now with the advent of 3D printing and lighter parts, it's much easier to build a walker than it was, but the determination is still lacking due to lack of incentive; I was originally going to build a walker back in the summer as I thought it was only walkers allowed as a 4th member, but as soon as I found out that clusters were allowed as well I gave up on the idea in favour of an easy cluster. If this rule was implemented I'd seriously look into building a walker again.. I'm looking at it vaguely at the moment, but there's currently no space on my team as it is... If there was a space that could only be filled by a walker, for me at least it would definitely get filled, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one :L
Rory Mangles - Team Nuts

Robots: Nuts 2 and many more...

NanoTwo Motor Controllers: https://nutsandbots.co.uk/product/nanotwodualesc
AntRoboteer
Posts: 441
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:01 pm

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by AntRoboteer »

Well, luckily for everyone, you should all be seeing an Antivation Cluster v2 which should be ready by AWS 46 which will, as always, be a cluster and retain the very unusual form factor while hopefully being competitive. That should add some variety to the competition as you all seem to want. I personally love innovation and implement it all the time such as my LED matrix on Doktor Power 3 or having an axe and a flipper on AntWithTopHat or using a really funky, unusual design like the original Doctor Powers, GiANT and the Antivation Cluster which all seem to be overlooked in times like this due to being ineffective.

I think we'll be seeing a lot more innovation very soon in the competition anyway and personally I wouldn't worry about changing the fourth slot rule. We already see awesome innovative robots which are very competitive such as Haggis, the new ring spinner Mutant, Andy's fan robot which I will probably misspell and others of the sort, many of which are clusters or could form clusters such as Nuts (clustered at AWS 44). Removing the cluster option would limit creativity, not boost it. As Dave says, we just need to test out new ideas and make sacrifices on our teams. Walkers are often slightly ineffective and hard to build which is the main reason I don't have one on my team so I don't think enforcing that you have to possess one to fill your fourth team slot is quite the way to go to boost creativity.

Well, that was a lot of writing; sorry about that! But the general message was: we have loads of innovation already and limiting the fourth slot would start the demise of all of that. Keep it as it is, I say.
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

"For reasons of which have wandered into the mists of time!"

As is so often with these things, it was my fault! I suggested it back when clusters were rare and it was voted in by committee.

I still believe all it would do is increase mediocre walkers! I would certainly build 4 robot teams whatever the rule was, and my walkers tend to be awful (even though one was once fleaweight champion!)

What about a cluster that is half walker half roller? Would that count as a fourth slot?

Would anyone bother with a cluster if it had to be one of their three main entries?
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
Hogi
Posts: 1002
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: basingstoke

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Hogi »

i would also like to see the 4th entry rule stay as it is: walker/clusterbot. in my opinion, if your that worried about a lack of innovation in the fields of walkers, clusterbots and shufflebots the best thing to do is invest the time and patients into building something innovative yourself. i currently have plans to build a three botlet clusterbot comprising a 100 gram ant and two 25 gram nanos. i have also touched on concepts for a shufflebot in the past but due to my haphazard construction techniques the mechanisms had a tendancy to get caught on the body and then jam up but i am planning on perfecting it one day ( i still have body and leg mechanisms for it but not electrical components ) anyway, the point i am trying to make is: if you want innovation, don't change the rules in an attempt to make it more likely to happen, make something innovative yourself and make it happen.
Daniel Jackson.

Team Hectic.

Many antweights

Super antweights: territorial.

Fleaweights: fleadom fighter, gaztons.

Featherweights: hectic (under construction)
razerdave
Posts: 1562
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:40 pm
Location: Carterton, Oxfordshire
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by razerdave »

For the record, I'd enter a cluster over a walker and wouldn't want the rules to revert. I dunno if I'd enter Good and Evil (new or old) over the other 3, but it has merit in its own right, so I wouldn't want to go back to being just walkers because it's beyond some folks (ie: me) to make one.
Remote-Controlled Dave
Posts: 3716
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Antrim, Northern Ireland
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by Remote-Controlled Dave »

Its a good point actually. As much as I would vote against the rule changing, if the majority wanted it to I'd just build walkers, so I'm pretty indifferent. But some people, like Dave, have rather a lot of time and development invested in their clusterbot as a fourth entry, and to take that away would seem a bit harsh. I know he could still enter it if he wanted to but it would have to be over one of his other (also long developed) team members and probably wouldn't make the cut.

Rory, you say there's no incentive to build a walker at the moment. Well, how about Kwejiboom coming fourth and consistently making it out of the group stages at AWSs? How about Peter Waller's Mutant being the only walker so far to win an AWS outright? Maybe there's your incentive, build a walker to challenge them and be an actual competitor, rather than taking the 'easy' route that you consider a cluster to be. No cluster has ever won the AWS or gone top 3, so is it really the better option?
Die Gracefully Robotics
Winner - AWS 39
TeamCrash
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:33 am
Location: Wolverhampton
Contact:

Re: 2015 AWS Rule Debate?

Post by TeamCrash »

Antivation Cluster 2? I look forward to pushing it OOTA again!
Team Crash- Robots:
Crash (Antweight)
RDR (Antweight)
The Not So Grim Reaper (Fleaweight, retired during construction)
Crash XL (Beetleweight, construction phase)
Post Reply