clarification on rules

[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.

[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]

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

[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]

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.

[craig_colliass]

Has in practice this ever happened in the UK champs.

"In the UK featherweight championship, you get 1 point just for entering the arena in the group stages. That 1 point can be the difference between making it straight through and having to compete in a play-off . This is especially helpful if you take an absolute battering in a fight and have limited repair time, and it’s beneficial to all competitors, not just those with a particular design/weapon type."

Has anyone with a one wheeled robot made it through to the main competition.

If I do make it to the FW UK champs, and am confronted with a one wheeled machine, I think I might spend three amusing minutes watching it try to get across the arena whilst my machine dose figure of eights just to comply with the rule you do agree with.

I think we can agree to disagree on the points you raised. I am just about to stick the wheels on the lunch box, Pictures to follow.

[shaneteamtilly]

I have just looked at all the posts and i think the rules should be changed to account for a one wheel drive robot so i propose that the immobilsation rule should not be one side gone your out it should be that the whole robot has to be dead to win that way there is no arguments and if any one thinks that this is wrong think about it if you cant beat a one wheeled drive robot then you deserve to lose i know if that happend to me i would be disapointed but i wouldnt be able to argue and and it makes the rules so much clearer

[cliveb]

I have just looked at all the posts and i think the rules should be changed to account for a one wheel drive robot so i propose that the immobilsation rule should not be one side gone your out it should be that the whole robot has to be dead to win that way there is no arguments and if any one thinks that this is wrong think about it if you cant beat a one wheeled drive robot then you deserve to lose i know if that happend to me i would be disapointed but i wouldnt be able to argue and and it makes the rules so much clearer

I thought at the last AGM that you Will and Craig accepted the task of sorting out the scoring system for the FRA. Does immobility not come under scoring for the judges?