Active Weapon Proposal

fair point andrew-

Those backing the proposal are owners of featherweight spinners

Just so people are aware, im not against box's because i run a disc..ive built fw axe's, flippers and lifters before aswell as heavyweight flippers and a 4wd heavyweight pusher lifter. Ive never built a pusher because i dont find it challenging. I take more fun out of this hobby from designing and building then compeeting.

i just think from an audience point of view, push bots can be a little tame.

Next event though- i suggest people look at the audience's faces when two drill motor hardox pushers are fighting. Then compair that to the look on there faces when robots like little hitter or explosion are compeeting.

I dont expect this rule to get passed. but its a good point jamie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muchalucha

this is just a suggestion before someone flames me lol . But maybe we could do what the antweight crowd have done , put a blanket rule on metal thickness(and maybe oher materials), over on the rw 101 forum this rule is being debated as it is seen by many as uneccesary due to the 150 g weight limit (and for other reasons). but in FW's , weight limits are never too much of a problem so maybe there should be a limit like :

steel : 2mm
aluminium :3 mm
hardox : 2mm
plastics other than hdpe polycarb and uhwmpe: 5mm
hdpe : 4mm
polycarb : 4mm
uhwmpe : 3mm

this applies just for armour only and is just a suggestion :)

---

Half decent spinners would just completely shred every one of those like so much cardboard, it would be pointless...

The challange for the mighty Seraphim still stands, the first to push it down the pit, or flip it OOTA you get £5.00. With Seraphim no one can do much with it as it can run over the armour pushers and the flippers can't reach that high. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Lets invent some new designs, you don't need active weapons you need to be original and thats entertaining. Think outside that thick Hardox armour box :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Some ram bots are good, Tonys baramot did a fair bit of damage to relentless at one event. The crowd love seeing baramot bouncing off the arena walls making a load of noise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craig_colliass

The challange for the mighty Seraphim still stands, the first to push it down the pit, or flip it OOTA you get £5.00. With Seraphim no one can do much with it as it can run over the armour pushers and the flippers can't reach that high. :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Lets invent some new designs, you don't need active weapons you need to be original and thats entertaining. Think outside that thick Hardox armour box :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

---

Bring it to the tag champs, we'll get it down the pit in pieces :twisted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_turbulence

i just think from an audience point of view, push bots can be a little tame.

---

Wait, you mean you dont do robots for fun, just for the audience? Talking about milking out the sport.
Lol, just kidding I still get your point, but some Roboteers do this for having fun, not only entertain other persons.

A common rule I know from working with kids and youngsters is that rules kills creativity

I hope to be there Nick, looking forward to the Sport :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

It should not be for the FRA to decide rules based on what is perceived to make good entertainment for an audience. Mentorn was a production company making an entertainment programme which frequently influenced its decision making process - possibly rightly so. If the FRA was to start setting rules and regulations on the basis of what robots would make a good show then it will have certainly lost the plot IMHO.

The only organisations who should be able to make a ruling of inclusion or exclusion of a bot without a weapon are the event orgainsers. This descision process is something they do all ready especially with regard to IC engines and spinners.

Imposing any restrictions on armour is again not in the spirt of combat robots unless it is under the umbrella of a new combat class.

If we are to start making robots that are only to fulfill the role of being entertaining and forget the real objectives of combat robots then this will never be a sport but resigned to being a side show.

I hope the FRA will dismiss any suggestion of enforcing a weapons rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2xt

If we are to start making robots that are only to fulfill the role of being entertaining and forget the real objectives of combat robots then this will never be a sport but resigned to being a side show.

---

Now I'm getting curious. What are the real objectives of combat robots? How are they in opposition of being entertaining? I would say that everything that makes the sport more entertaining for both the audience and builders are positive.

Still, I do not want a rule that prohibit all pushers. Making the pit less available (in time and/or space) should make them less attractive to experienced builders. Reduced maximum weight for pushers can do the same.

Have Fun
STB

im gona get stamped on for saying this but lol, its a valid point , but if a rule is point in placed it is in serious danger of sucking all the fun out of the sport:(.

Ok guys, thanks for all the comments, whether they be in support of the proposal or against it. Its been good reading everyone's thoughts. Having gone through all the posts, I've been able to see not only if you're 'for' or 'against' it but also the various reasons behind the decisions.

I have decided that I will not be submitting an official request or proposal to the gonverning body for consideration/debate.

I still, personally, would like to see a lot more weaponed robots in action but this is my own viewpoint, and from the posts that have been made the majority of you would prefer not to see a whole category of robot being banned, even just from competition fights. Its also more obvious now than when I made the first post that a decision to ban a particular class of robots is more difficult for a governing body to implement than it would be for an event organiser to put in place for their events.

Some good ideas have also surfaced as a result of this discussion, such as the 10kg passvie weight limit, or altering the environment to change the dynamic of battles.

If anyone who was in support of the proposal still wishes to carry it forward please feel free to. And also, even though I've chosen not to submit the proposal to the governing body, if anyone still wishes to add their view, please do so. That way there will be a rough reference of general opinion on the matter accessible through the forum.

Thanks for all your comments guys. I'm now off on holiday and will have no internet connection or general PC for a week :(
I'll be suffering withdrawl symptoms - its amazing that we used to get along perfectly well without computers

I fully agree with M2xt here but I would like to add more of my own:

Quote:

---

What if a robot, with active weapons, enters an event and the weapon breaks down, but the robot can still drive. Is it disqualified or allowed to cotinue?

---

Good point!! If it's weapon fails then what option is left but to become a much less effective rambot than robots designed to be such. Oh it's boring so let's disqualify it.

Also, I have a problem with the argument of it being boring. Where then do you stop when it comes to boring? What will be next? Impose a minimum speed limit? Ban lifters because they don't send an opponent into orbit? Any more suggestions?

I know of 2 very good (so-called boring) boxes that are armoured from nothing more solid or technologically advanced than wood and are driven by nothing more fancy than drill motors but they have gone up against the spinners and come out victorious. It's no surprise to me (no pun intended) :lol: but that was a fight and not just one bang, a shower of sparks and the audience left wondering why nothing more is happening.

As a sport it's not really that accessible as it is without introducing a rule where you can only a 10kg box which everyone starts with up against a 13.6kg spinner. May as well just tell people you can join in, you can compete but we'll smash it to pieces because we've written the rules in our favour.

Feathers and boxes are where people tend to start out and effectively excluding them from the main competitions is just stopping new people entering the sport which would eventually see the death of the sport.

Maybe that's a bit strong but you see what I'm saying.

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flippt

I still get your point, but some Roboteers do this for having fun, not only entertain other persons.

A common rule I know from working with kids and youngsters is that rules kills creativity

---

First of all I would like to say that I agree both with Joachim and Paul.

Even though I have adopted the I don't want a pushbox no matter how well made it is stance, still I do not think we should ever create rules that limit the creativity of the roboteers.

I also feel that it is not the FRA's job to decide whether active weapons should be enforced. In fact any limitiation in any weight class that is not demonstrably related to safety should not be made into a rule by the FRA at all.

Whether or not rambots are allowed in a competition should lie squarely with the Event Organisers. If they feel that their events are suffering because there are too many rambots and not enough active weapons, they have every right to impose such a rule to their events.

Therefore even though I personally prefer having as many active weapons as possible in an event, I feel it is not the FRA's business to make such a preference mandatory.

I agree with Leo, the FRA's job is more about seeing that people join in and compete safely and not penalising someone because they don't yet have the experience or cash to build a bot with an active weapon.
It is up to the EO's if they wish to run active only fights.
As you may be aware I run a heavyweight pushbot (Puck), this is, strictly speaking, against the RW rules (all weights above feather must have active weapons).
It was built on a whim, for a laugh and it certainly has entertained.
I don't enter it into competitions unless it is needed to make up the numbers, it was built as a chew toy (Ian Watts quote) for the other bots.
I also intend, eventually!, to build a bot that is designed to be destroyed in every fight, I think audiences need a bit of staged destruction to spice things up.
Mike.

This subject has been discussed at previous FRA meetings and it was decided that such a rule would be against the constitution so it was dismissed.

It seems as though every other post is from someone who has Governing Body under their name, when do us mortals know when a post is an official FRA Governing Body post / statement or simply the personal views of the poster? Also, how many Governing Body members are there, is there a list? Perhaps to avoid confusion, Governing Body members should have two log in accounts, one official and one for personal use. It concerns me having one account when I post personally and when I post for Technobots.

bots without weapons suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m2xt

It seems as though every other post is from someone who has Governing Body under their name, when do us mortals know when a post is an official FRA Governing Body post / statement or simply the personal views of the poster? Also, how many Governing Body members are there, is there a list? Perhaps to avoid confusion, Governing Body members should have two log in accounts, one official and one for personal use. It concerns me having one account when I post personally and when I post for Technobots.

---

I never speak for the governing body, that is the job of the Secretary and the chairman. So whatever I say is me talking, no one else.

Karoline, i dont dislike box's because they've beaten me in the past.. I disslike them because i dont find them interesting to watch. Im not that competitve anymore, if i lost i really dont care aslong as i didnt lose because of a stupid reason lol. If i lost to a spinner, i wouldnt hate spinners. if i got flipped out (like with the heavyweights) i dont dislike flippers, lifters crushers axe's.. whatever.

Its just my personal opinion.

I really dont think its upto the FRA to decide to ban box's though.. that much i agree with most people.

But i think EO's could possibly be selectrive on what types of robots they want to run in spectator events, such as the uk championships when to many robots enter and some have to be put to being reserves because they signed up late... but again thats upto them. Not the general roboteer.

What I posted above is not an opinion it is a fact, although at the time I was not a governing body member I was at the meeting. So wether or not I am a GB member it is still true.

If the issue of us posting on personal accounts concerns others please say I can bring it up on Saturday, im sure its not difficult to have two accounts (Kane - would we need to have a second email address to register a second account?)

Hi Paul,there already is a list of the Governing Body.If you check the FRA front page and click on the contact section at the top the full list is there.
Clive

Thanks Clive, now I'm wiser as to who is on the Governing Body or more to the point who is not as it is quite a long list!

No probs Paul, I wonder though how many users of the forum aren't aware of what is on the front page and just use the forum ( myself included i must add )

tbh I like seeing good rammers slam robots around; a box/wedge smashing another robot at 25mph into a wall and seeing them fly from the impact is good enough. Storm II made enough noise with Steel Avenger, Firestorm, Tornado and Typhoon 2. And it hardly used its actual weapon it equipped. Heck, Tornado itself with its 10mph was quite the good one. Proof that rammers can be just as exciting as other robots.

(though I also like good spinners, axes, flippers, crushers, etc. :proud:)

That aside, can we not be varied, people? If a roboteer wants to make their robot the way they want it, even if it's a passive rammer, you shouldn't have the right to reject it from a tournament it wants to enter. Let the audience decide how popular they should be instead of taking matters out of the roboteers' hands.

Personal post or GB post? I DO give the credit to the membership for having the savyy to see the difference.

As long as you can but I cannot always. We have been here before and seen the confusion that can occur during debates with official and personal statements. Perhaps I am completely void of any savvy?

People on the GB are also roboteers and for various reasons they tend to disagree with each other on this and many other issues however, jointly, as Ed has already correctly stated, the proposal was dismissed some time ago (a couple of years ago off the top of my head) primarily for being unconstitutional and secondly the likes of Pillow Torque and Small Torque were strangely exempted from the 'boring' list hence my Owellian comment of 'some robots are more equal than others'.

I was just stating my opinion, really...