After the last “Junkyard II” event at Jam Jerrup – Daniel the E.O. has suggested the following changes.
(The original post is on the bottom)
-------------------------------
Pre Fight : Function test
-------------------------------
Builders must briefly demonstrate all working mechanical devices on their robots this includes weapons / lifters / drive systems and any other mechanical device.
From this the judges can get a clear idea of any safety issues and establish what mechanical condition the bot was in before the fight starts.
If you don’t demonstrate it – you cannot use it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Actual Fight :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Judging as last event - on control and aggression only
Aggression is defined as your bot moving in a controlled manner towards the other robot at speed (yes we do realize the speed can be dramatically different between robots – but you cannot claim aggression if a snail could move faster than your robot )
Control : Is defined as you being able to control you robot successfully , this also includes weapon control - if a weapon either misses more often than not, or it fails to do what was said it should that should count against your bot ….
-------------------------------
Post Fight : Function test
------------------------------
Builders must again briefly demonstrate all working mechanical devices on their robots this includes weapons / lifters / drive systems and any other mechanical device. From this the judges can get a clear idea of what mechanical condition the bot was in after the fight ends
****** the Judges will score the bot out of 10 in comparison to its working condition BEFORE the fight . *******
This added to the bots score . This change allows things like weapon failure to be considered while not making the in-fight judging any more complicated.
The match outcome will be decided on these basic things
……………………………………………………………………….
Original Post Follows
……………………………………………………………………….
Judging has been a much talked about subject and here will likely be no different - LOL
I believe , we need a system that reflects our competition and country , not one that reflects someone else’s .
As we discussed at the builders meeting at Daniels - I propose that we lose the category’s of "Damage" and "Style" from the criteria and judge the comp simply on control and aggression. I feel that both these things can be judged under the control category. What is "damage" (to another robot) has always been a argument and has often proved to be hard to decide fairly. If you fitted a "care bear" toy (or 6 beer cans) to your robot for the entertainment value and it got destroyed - that’s damage against you ..... In fact any "minor" yet spectacular damage could lose you the fight .
A non active weapon robot can hardly collect damage points and although it may dominate the fight by having far more aggression and control - its only likely hope is a tko to win .. If a active weapon bot damages the control ability of his opponent then he will score by denying control to his opponent . If the "active" robot sits in the middle of the arena and waits for another robot to attack him.. then the attacker should get the points ..Like a demolition derby - there are no points for sitting still ..If your robot is doing something "cool" - like lifting up another robot , driving sideways under power , slamming the other bot into the wall or throwing the opposition up to the roof - this is control .. - you have it and the other bot doesn't .I feel that this change will make the comp more fair to all competitors and robot types while rewarding those who keep the fight fast paced by continuous attacks on the other robot . So the crowd get more fun ... Builders can fit "entertainment" pieces to their robots that can be destroyed without fear of penalty by way of "damage" points. A system to judge these "fast paced" fights and provide a result at fights end is what I am working on now
_________________
Some people pass cars - some people get passed by cars

Last edited by the moth on Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:02 pm; edited 5 times in total

I've never actually considered at looking at it from that angle before... But I like it This does have potential to create pretty damn even playing field, regardless of your design...
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

Would that mean a pushy bot could control an opponent by boxing it in a corner for three minutes? That would be 100% control and aggression while being supremely boring.
_________________
Australian 2015 Featherweight champion
UK 2016 Gladiator champion

That's why the pinning rule was introduced into RobotWars
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

The current damage points do work if used correctly, since the score is low until the defending robots function or mobility are impaired. The main thing is that the judges either require a photographic memory or a lot of practice to remember how to score each category.
_________________
They say that he crossed the fine line, from insanity to genius.

I like the Moth proposal.

I have never liked the idea that a spinning weapon touching another robot and scratching paint is classed as damage. IMO the armour is meant to be hit with a spinning weapon.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

quote:

---

So the crowd get more fun ... Builders can fit "entertainment" pieces to their robots that can be destroyed without fear of penalty by way of "damage" points.

---

There are a few things that bother me about the way damage is judged to.

Personally I think it is the most important criteria. I would support a system where the bots were inspected carefully for appearance and function before and after each fight. I would apply the 2.2.2.rules.

The difference is that I would not disregard damage because of excuses like my opponent didn’t make my blade fall off; I just had the motor spinning the wrong way or he didn’t make my wheel fall off I just couldn’t be bothered doing it up.
As far as I am concerned if your Bot malfunctions for any reason during the fight its counted and that includes flat TX batteries.

The other major problem with the way damage is judged is the don’t count that hit because spinner A was stationary when brick B rammed him.
You don’t have to attack a stationary spinner, if you chose to obviously you deserve the aggression points.
You are probably looking good on control if you can drive rings around him to.

The difference is that IN MY opinion any damage you incur and that includes attacking a spinning Thwack bot counts.

This seems to be a rule left over from an early US decision where no one really knew what was going on.

These days using the horizontal thwack example if you go into a spin with your thwack your opponent sits back or does a spin and gets a laugh and you have to give in and go chase him.

If you have a brick you have all your weight in drive and Armour. Under 2.2.2. If you get under or push your opponent into the wall you are scoring damage points anyhow!
The Rocks job is to break the scissors, at least that’s the game balance I like.

By putting a significant proportion of your weight points into a KE weapon you are taking a big risk because if that weapon isn’t working at the end if the fight that’s major damage.

Generally I suspect spinner builders are not trying to exploit rules and win judged fights, they are trying to avoid judged fights; going for a Knock Out.

If the spinner brake’s the brick will win.

If the spinner doesn’t brake it’s the aggression control and damage by lifts and slams points of the brick to whatever cuts or dent type points the spinner may have inflicted plus the style points that the generally more charismatic spinner may have accrued.

Applying the rules we already have and penalizing those flippers spinners active weapons that stop working makes sense to me.

If I could change something else from the present Robowars system it would be to go to the original Robot Wars system of factoring the judging criteria.

Yes I really like the style point but I would have it as the least important, still there as a reward and encouragement for builders to turn up with entertaining well presented bots but so it is just a tiebreaker




In the arena the robots face each other in a timed fight to the death. If within the allotted time one of the robots becomes immobilised, the other robot will be declared the winner. If neither of the robots have been immobilised our panel of expert judges will declare the winner on a points system using four judging criteria as follows:
1. DAMAGE. (Weight of 4) 1-5 points x 4 = Score for Damage.
2. AGGRESSION. (Weight of 3) 1-5 points x 3 = Score for Aggression.
3. CONTROL. (Weight of 2) 1-5 points x 2 = Score for Control.
4. STYLE. (Weight of 1) 1-5 points x 1 = Score for Style.
The winner will be the robot who has scored the highest number of points if there has been no clear winners. This scoring system gives a fair and unbiased chance for every robot- irrespective of size, weight or power- to win!



This is the current damage rules as used by Robowars


2.2.2. Scoring Damage
Judges should be knowledgeable about how different materials are damaged. Some
materials such as Titanium will send off bright sparks when hit but are still very strong and
may be largely undamaged. Other materials such as Aluminum will not send off bright
sparks when hit. Judges should not be influenced by things like sparks, but rather how
deep or incapacitating a "wound" is.

Judges should be knowledgeable about the different materials used in Bot construction
and how damage to these materials can reduce a Bots functionality. Judges should not to
be unduly influenced by highly visual damage that doesn’t affect a Combatant's
functionality effectiveness or defensibility. For example, a gash in a Combatants armor
may be very visible but only minimally reduce the armor's functionality.

Judges should look for damage that may not be visually striking but affects the
functionality of a Combatant. For example:
· a small bend in a lifting arm or spinner weapon may dramatically affect its
functionality by preventing it from having its full range of motion
· bent armor or skirts can prevent the Combatant from resting squarely on the floor,
reducing the effectiveness of the drive train
· A wobbly wheel indicates that it is bent and will not get as much traction.
· Cuts or holes through armor may mean there is more damage inside.
Damage suffered to robots can be grouped into the following classifications:

Trivial
· Flip over (or being propelled onto bumper, ramp, or other obstacle) causing no
loss of mobility or loss of weapon functionality.
· Direct impacts which do not leave a visible dent or scratch.
· Sparks resulting from strike of opponent's weapon
· Being lifted in the air with no damage and no lasting loss of traction.

Cosmetic
· Visible scratches to armor.
· Non-penetrating cut or dent or slight bending of armor or exposed frame.
· Removal of non-structural, non-functional cosmetic pieces (dolls, foliage, foam, or
"ablative" armor).
· Damage to wheel, spinning blade, or other exposed moving part not resulting in
loss of functionality or mobility.

Minor
Flip over (or being propelled onto bumper or other obstacle) causing some loss of mobility
or control or making it impossible to use a weapon.
· Intermittent smoke not associated with noticeable power drop.
· Penetrating dent or small hole.
· Removal of most or all of a wheel, or saw blade, spike, tooth, or other weapon
component, which does not result in a loss of functionality or mobility.
· Slightly warped frame not resulting in loss of mobility or weapon function.

Significant:
· Continuous smoke, or smoke associated with partial loss of power of drive or
weapons.
· Torn, ripped, or badly warped armor or large hole punched in armor.
· Damage or removal of wheels resulting in impaired mobility
· damage to rotary weapon resulting in loss of weapon speed or severe vibration
· damage to arm, hammer, or other moving part resulting in partial loss of weapon
functionality.
· Visibly bent or warped frame.
· Major: Smoke and visible fire.
· Armor section completely removed exposing interior components.
· Removal of wheels, spinning blade, saw, hammer, or lifting arm, or other

major
component resulting in total loss of weapon functionality or mobility.
· Frame warping causing partial loss of mobility or complete loss of functionality of
weapon system.
· Internal components (batteries, speed controller, radio, motor) broken free from
mounts and resting or dragging on the arena floor.
· Significant leak of hydraulic fluid.
· Obvious leaks of pneumatic gases.

Massive
· Armor shell completely torn off frame.
· Major subassemblies torn free from frame.
· Loss of structural integrity - major frame or armor sections dragging or resting on
floor.
· Total loss of power.

Post-Match Inspection
Judges may request the combatants to demonstrate operability of their robots drive train
and/or weapon following the end of the match, before the arena doors are opened.
Judges may inspect the Combatants robot after a match to determine how best to award
damage points. The judges will not handle the Combatants robot. The driver or a
designated team member will handle the Combatants robot. A member of the opponent's
team may be present during any such inspection.

Damage self-inflicted by a robot's own systems and not directly or indirectly caused by
contact with the other robot or an active arena hazard will not be counted for scoring
purposes.

---- END OF Steel Conflict Guidelines ----


You might notice beer cans and care bears would come under cosmetic damage and provision for them already exists.

Also hits, lifts and flips that leave no marks already are quantified and counted as damage.
_________________
Satisfaction is proportional to effort and results.

I agree with Rotwang that any damage caused in the arena, should be counted against you, since it will prevent any arguments. You wouldn't be able to claim damage via ignorance or arena wall.

I'm also in favor of after battle inspections from the judges for anything other than a TKO.

Apart from that the rules are fairly comprehensive, and there haven't been too many complaints against them.
_________________
They say that he crossed the fine line, from insanity to genius.

Rules discussions are always a good way to get everyone fired up..

Just to clarify, as far as the January Sidetracked RoboWars event goes, the current rules will continue to stand, unless a majority consensus is reached on any changes well before the event.

The rules and event structure for that event are open to change, but you guys need to agree on what changes are pleasing to all of you before what has worked reasonably well in the past will be altered, so dont let the discussion fizzle out before a conclusion is made.

Other events are of course free to experiment with whatever rules they like and see how they work in practice, and I look forward to seeing how different rules alter the teams techniques in both building and driving
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

The only problem i can see with bringing, 'Bumps and Scratches' into the judging criteria is a hell off a lot more rubber car tyre robots and who blames someone for doing so, i would go that way for sure and most folks would also.
So that glitch is easy fixed.But it would see a return of the the mighty
'Saw Bots' of days gone bye to counter act that rubber tyre issue

_________________
Photos - http://community.webshots.com/album/154092733uokpXC
Photos- http://community.webshots.com/album/166819552PDWWqP

I would like to see the above judging criteria tested at an event or two so that we can see if it works in practice.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

O.K - Having read through the posts its obvious that a few things need to be clarified ...

Firstly , my understanding is this is not a robowars Victorian event ? , but a separate Victorain event being organized by Daniel - So the event structure and judging system of robowars does not apply.

This is about a change to the way we do some things at some events in Victoria and unless we are sheep - I do not believe that we have to blindly follow other competitions .

I wonder how many people think that robots who have "active" weapons both have and have had unfair judging advantages in the past.

Someone said - "well if it 'aint broke don't fix it" .. I have read some of the other threads and judging has always been a hot topic for discussion , so its not really honest to suggest that some of the current judging approaches are thought to be fair or even agreed upon by all. - Yes it is broke ...

What is actually wrong with a system that tries to make it fair for all robot types . If people "hate" boring wedges - this give a opportunity to make them more interesting.
Barely moveable spinners may actually have to be drivable too.

Just because I don't seem to qualify for a title of "experienced roboteer" - that does not mean that I have just arrived - I have ran and attended many events and previously controlled the judging , so I do have a idea of what is practical and achievable .

Complex judging systems are fine but simple ones are much easier to maintain .
Manpower is always a problem at events , with judges often being "roped in" at the last moment with limited experience . I believe a simple system is the most manageable at this point and we can also go "more complicated" if we want to in the future.

An relatively simple electronic "button" system can be developed to make the judging system active through the whole of the fight and provide a result immediately at the end if there is not a TKO .

enjoy
_________________
Some people pass cars - some people get passed by cars

OK Rick, you're an "Experienced Roboteer" now.

That wasnt any slight against you, I think you joined the forum after I set that group up, and I dont update the user levels very often, because the reason I started assigning levels in the first place was to stop newbies posting in the ultimate guides section - which was replaced by the wiki.

If anyone else who has actually competed at an event or two (and has hence earned their stripes) wants their profile updated, just ask.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a judging system that is fair for all, and the current Robowars/RFL system could quite likely be improved - and will be if you can specify improvements that everyone agrees are fair.

Given that the title was "Victorian Judging Changes" rather than a specific event name, I felt it was important to clarify that the Robowars-Event rules have not yet been changed and will not be without majority agreement beforehand.

I'm all for making the job of inexperienced roped-in judges easier to understand - its a thankless job, and simplifying it would be welcome.
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

I don't know what this obsession with making rules totally "fair" is all about . Nothing is ever fair for long - if you change the rules then people will naturally seek the new advantages and another type of bot design will become dominant before long. At that point, someone will turn around and say "That's not fair!" and the whole merry-go-round will start off again

I'm not saying everyone has to play be the same rules, but if you DO have two rule sets for the same group of competitors, you risk splitting the community and may end up with less competitors at each event.

The argument that the judging is broken is plain wrong - it's only broken if 51% of all the competitors at a particular event say it is and that has never come close at an Australian event. Perhaps things could be simpler, but the judging guidelines as shown above by Garry seem very clear and specific. If anything was to change, I would vote for Garry's suggestions.

The idea that spinners are barely drivable is also plainly wrong: I recall that IG has been able to push other bots hard enough to actually flip them. At Marayong, Orbit was entered without a weapon and wedged it's way to the semi-finals. Several events ago, Jolt ran low on batteries and relied on pushing power to finish the match - the list goes on for spinners that are more than stationary arena hazzards. Anyway, if someone does enter a non-drivable spinner they will get marked down on control and/or aggression under the existing rules and pay the price for an inferior design, so the current rules seem to work.

Wedges can be interesting but only if they are fast and powerful. I don't see anything here that would actually make wedges more interesting, in fact, tipping the rules against spinners will remove the incentive for wedge builders to strive for the highest standards - Cobra would not be getting upgraded armour and traction if it didn't face those nasty Sydney spinners.

To end with an analogy; some builders a paddling in the shallow end of the pool, while others are diving in at the deep end. Its not possible to move everyone up to the deep end with a rule or judging change and restricting everyone to the shallow end is plain boring. That's the way it is in life, not just combat bots!
_________________
Australian 2015 Featherweight champion
UK 2016 Gladiator champion