Arena size

Remote-Controlled Dave · Sun May 11, 2008 2:17 pm

After reading about how successful it was at the last AWS, is it maybe time to think about having arenas that are a bit bigger, with more room to play in?

Also, I for one would love to have one tournament (something aside from the AWS, as I dont think it'd be fair to do it as a main competition) with no drop offs, just really low walls all around. Just to see how it would change the competition.

But mostly, I think maybe we should allow arenas to get a little bigger?

peterwaller · Post by **peterwaller** » Sun May 11, 2008 6:13 pm

Actually I don't think the arena was much bigger it was the area around it and the polycarb cover that were much bigger giving little chance of bouncing back into the arena.

Post by **BeligerAnt** » Sun May 11, 2008 6:15 pm

Dave, the actual fighting area was the standard 30" square with 50% drop-off.

The difference was that the box was about 4' x 6' and about 2' high. It did look truly massive. The arena fitted diagonally in the box, so all the "pit" areas were very very wide and there was not much chance of any robot bouncing off the side wall and back into the arena.

It was a nice set-up, but did require Tim's dad's large trailer to transport it!

I think the arena is big enough as it is, there is plenty of room for 2 robots to chase around, and it also makes it a test of driving skill to keep a fast robot in the arena.

Some kind of "death-match" event with no drop-off could be interesting, or maybe even more dull than some of the longer fights we currently get... The "drop off" debate has raged before, and I'm sure will do so again in the future, but last time it was decided that the arena rules (along with 150g and 4" cube) were the fundamental rules of antweights and they should stay as they are. This may not suit everyone, but I guess it will stay this way until a new consensus is reached.

Meanwhile, I'm sure a healthy debate will ensue...

Craig_Anto3 · Post by **Craig_Anto3** » Sun May 11, 2008 9:12 pm

thats not the reception i got when i suggested this years go

Bigger arenas is not a problem, i really dont see what damage it would do to the sport, one reason against was they're not going to be eeasy to move around, surely thats down to the builder how they get it round?

I am (now and always have been) for bigger arenas, a bigger arena doesnt mean 6ft square arenas just being given the opertunity to expand our end of the sport

Craig
currently building his class 1 heavyweight arena

Remote-Controlled Dave · Mon May 12, 2008 1:06 am

Did the expanded space around the arena help then?

leo-rcc · Post by **leo-rcc** » Mon May 12, 2008 7:50 am

I'd say yes, specially with the angles setup there was no question if a bounce back in the arena is it still in or out. Out was definitaly out.

Post by **petec** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:57 pm

Antweight arenas have always been around accessibility. When Adam came up with the format, he wanted the arenas to be as accessible as the ants - so you can challenge someone to a fight, on your arena, right here - right now. This has had to change because of the spinners.

Pete, Oliver and I all have 'small' arenas and they still take up most of the car - in my case, a Mondeo Estate is hardly a small car! We are a small (but perfectly formed

) group these days and there is no point having grand schemes if people can't do them.

As long as the arena complies with the rules, the container can be any size at all - doesn't matter. Leo's point is reasonable, but as yet unproved. None of the incidents (from the hours I spent looking at the video) were of the type that caused controversy a couple of events back.

So, can we have bigger arenas cases? Sure, you build em, you transport em and don't expect the rules to change to make it the norm!

leo-rcc · Post by **leo-rcc** » Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:17 pm

petec wrote:Leo's point is reasonable, but as yet unproved. None of the incidents (from the hours I spent looking at the video) were of the type that caused controversy a couple of events back.

In my opinon exactly because the bounces that did happen couldnt bounce the robots back in.

Cavecrusher · Post by **Cavecrusher** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:12 pm

BeligerAnt wrote:It was a nice set-up, but did require Tim's dad's large trailer to transport it!

only because it was 1" to high to fit in the back.

, i'm redesigning it to be more portable.

Post by **petec** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:02 pm

leo-rcc wrote:
petec wrote:Leo's point is reasonable, but as yet unproved. None of the incidents (from the hours I spent looking at the video) were of the type that caused controversy a couple of events back.
In my opinon exactly because the bounces that did happen couldnt bounce the robots back in.

No, I meant none were in the same conditions. That particular incident was unusual and I didn't see anything like it at the last AWS.