clarification on rules

[Mouldy]

With craig on this... if a robot cant move properly whats the point.. I always test my drive when i put the link in by giving it a little blip on the tx left, right, forward and back so i'm happy with it before the fight... then i drive to the other side of the arena while others are arming up, or stay put if im the last to arm... if your not capable of that i see it as the fight being a waste of time...especially considering that your likely to get judged on its failings at the end of the fight.

[RogueTwoRobots]

I dunno, I went in to a losers' melee with one wheel working and won. I only had 15-20 minutes for repairs and it wasn't enough to get the problem repaired (compared to 1+ hour repair time for my opponents). But not being counted out allowed me to progress in the competition. I personally don't think it's a waste of a fight; if my fully-mobile opponents cannot defeat a handicapped robot then that's their problem, and the crowd usually get a kick out of the underdog making it through.

Craig, the figure of eight rule only really applies if it's an extremely close judges' decision. So not being able to do the figure of eight at the start shouldn't lead to that robot being counted out as the handicapped robot can still take the win through its opponent beating itself/driving in the pit etc.

The only way it can be fair to count a robot out right from the start due to only having one wheel is if all robots have equal repair time. Otherwise I think you should be allowed to fight and let the battle take its course. No match involving a one-wheeled robot is a foregone conclusion.

[Ellis]

For what it's worth, I think a figure of 8 is asking a heck of a lot. Driving forward or backward somewhat straight should be enough, which is all you need to be competitive. If a drive side is completely dead the robot won't go at all straight - easy to judge. I wonder if I could pull off a satisfactory 8 even with our fairly controllable 4WD machines working well.

[craig_colliass]

Hi interesting points raised in this discussion. even with the views expressed I am inclined to still stick with the basic premiss, the robot should be able to move in a controlled manner (I don't consider even with my bad driving skills a figure of eight to be excessive), and ideally the weapon should be operating as designed at the start of the fight.

Hi Jamie
With regard to the repair time I sympathise with your situation, but I don't think this is a good enough reason to dismiss the first point.
The only practical solution I can see would be for there to be a minimum time between fights for charging and repair enshrined in the rules, I would think 30-45 minutes.
Also I am glad you won with just one drive wheel, but again I don't think you would disagree with me the rules should not be shaped around the occasional fluke!

[mattsdragons]

I feel it should be up to the drivers discretion if they choose to enter. If they wish to enter a fight with one wheel working or no weapon then so be it, but its likely they will loose. I don't feel there should be rules put in place to stop drivers from fighting if they wish.

[maddox10]

More rules and regulations, somebody loves the EU...



I don't.

[Team Invade]

I completely agree not being given equal time to repair is unfair Jamie and I would have been happy for the fight to be postponed had I been asked, but in this situation I do not agree with your principle that two wrongs make a right. In my opinion, if you thought that you had not been given enough time you should have asked for more (which we would have supported), rather than expect special treatment from the judges as a result of this.

I cannot see how it can be justified that a robot is mobile if it cannot move towards an opponent, in other words, "demonstrate control" as is written in the current rules.

[maddox10]

There are machines that can't even drive to an opponent when in mint condition.

In most cases decent spinners with the weapon at full speed.

[Ellis]

The problem with enforcing control demos is that it'll move the grey area. The line between not working and not working well has to be black and white, which is obviously something that has to be judged on the spot. And where does a bot with bad trims and a wonky wheel stand? Or if a bot can't move towards the opponent but it's never received a hit, is the builder penalised?

It would be easy to, even if unintentionally, cause collateral damage for imperfect machines and dodgy drivers.

I realise I should be trying to come up with an alternative having taken an against-stance, thinking about it.

edit: for after fight judging, how about on-cradle testing? I.e., running the drive with the wheels raised to see what works. Eliminates the driver element.

[Team Invade]

There are machines that can't even drive to an opponent when in mint condition.

In most cases decent spinners with the weapon at full speed.

Then I would have thought they are immobile regardless. Surely a robot has to be able to attack it's opponent.

[typhoon_driver]

Declare any damage previous to the judges pre-match and then that damage can't be counted against you points wise under damage. If it buggers up the operation of the machine then tough titty. Nice and simple.

So if you have a spinner that isn't going to spin or a flipper that won't flip then the judges know it before hand and can discount that from the point scoring. If your wheel doesn't work well then it's much the same and likely to hamper your chances of winning the match.

[typhoon_driver]

Oh and if you don't declare it before the match then tough titty for the scoring as well

[craig_colliass]

Again some interesting comments,

With regard to "rules" I agree too many are bad, but too few could be worse!
I don't think the comment was targeted enough for me at this time to change my view on the repair time rule.

The spinner on full power is not capable of reasonable control I can see the gyroscope effect could make this possible but as far as I am aware the "big spinners" have proportional control so this is not in practice a problem.

The idea about testing robots on the cradle I understand the logic, but feel again we are going to accommodate robots that perhaps needs a little more development, so they can move and turn in a controlled way.

It is reasonable for a robot to be within weight, and to have a link etc. I would argue it is reasonable the robot chassis can actually move at the beginning of the fight. and turn corners! (for instance a figure of eight) otherwise I could put wheels on my lunch box and put in in the arena for a competition point. and this of course is absurd.

The idea of the rules is not to be manipulated for advancement of the absurd, but to maintain a clear and level environment for everyone to compete.
And I know we all agree on that. (Or do we!!! )

[maddox10]

Then I would have thought they are immobile regardless. Surely a robot has to be able to attack it's opponent.

With the weapon on low power or even non active, the situation is different.

If somebody wants to go in with an semi disabled machine, he or she knows that it's a long shot to win.
Who cares if the opponent is mobility disadvantaged... Who's going to say "you win" because the opponents machine wasn't repaired before the fight , or just badly constructed from te start?

That doesn't need a rule or test.

How are we going to be sure it's all done properly? Having a neutral driver doing the figure 8?

[Ellis]

I think, if it's inside the safety rules, any robot should be allowed to enter, at the discretion of the builder. Unless it's completely black and white, a rule like that could (accidentally) cutout 1/4 of entrants.

Maybe we need to work on the definition of movement, or enforce a minimum required internals rule. Of course I understand it's a bit silly for a robot that it is literally missing motors or something to enter. Then again that sort of thing would get stopped immediately just on principal.