Register To Comment
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: clarification on rules

  1. #21
    More rules and regulations, somebody loves the EU...

    I don't.

  2. #22
    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.

  3. #23
    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.

  4. #24
    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.
    Last edited by Ellis; 7th June 2014 at 19:47.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by maddox10 View Post
    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.

  6. #26
    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.

  7. #27
    Oh and if you don't declare it before the match then tough titty for the scoring as well

  8. #28
    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!!! )

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Team Invade View Post
    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?
    Last edited by maddox10; 7th June 2014 at 20:52.

  10. #30
    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.
    Last edited by Ellis; 7th June 2014 at 21:11.

Register To Comment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts