Active Weapon Proposal

[RogueTwoRobots]

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

[anukhet]

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

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) but that was a fight and not just one bang, a shower of sparks and the audience left wondering why nothing more is happening.

[widow_twanky]

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

[leorcc]

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.

[pressure]

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.

[geeza]

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.

[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.

[gravity]

bots without weapons suck.

[leorcc]

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.

[Mouldy]

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.