RoboWars Australia Wiki : JudgingGuidelines

RobowarsWikka1 :: Categories :: PageIndex :: RecentChanges :: RecentlyCommented :: Login/Register

RoboWars Judging Guidelines


Note:- The formating of this page will be completed soon.

1. Tournament Judges


A panel of judges will determine the winner of matches in which time expires before one combatant is defeated as defined in the Tournament Rules and Procedures. The number of judges on the panel shall be an odd number to eliminate the possibility of ties. Judges' decisions are final.

1.1. Qualifications


1.1.1. Responsibilities


1.1.2. Foreman


1.1.3. Conduct


2. Judges' Decisions: Scoring


When a match does not end in the elimination of one of the Combatants as defined by the Rules and Procedures the winner shall be determined by a Judges' Decision. In a Judges' Decision the points awarded to the Combatants by the panel of judges are totalled and the winner with the majority of points is declared the winner.

2.1. Point Scoring System

- Points are awarded in 4 categories. All points must be awarded - each judge will determine how many points to award each Combatant in each category, according to the Judging Guidelines (see below).


2.2. Judging Guidelines


2.2.1. Scoring Aggression


2.2.2. Scoring Damage

o 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
o bent armour or skirts can prevent the Combatant from resting squarely on the floor, reducing the effectiveness of the drive train
o A wobbly wheel indicates that it is bent and will not get as much traction
o Cuts or holes through armour 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 armour
Non-penetrating cut or dent or slight bending of armour or exposed frame.
Removal of non-structural, non-functional cosmetic pieces (dolls, foam, or "ablative" armour)
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.
Armour 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.
Internal components (batteries, speed controller, radio, motor) broken free from mounts and resting or dragging on the arena floor.
Significant leak of hydraulic fluid or 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.


2.2.3 Scoring Control


Each robot is awarded a point in the Control category based on its demonstration of control of itself, its opponent, and the match. Length of time during which control is demonstrated, and the degree to which control is demonstrated, shall both be taken into account in the final determination of which robot showed superior control and is to be awarded the control point.

The degrees of possible control examples are...

Helpless. The robot is unable to demonstrate control, is barely mobile, or moves randomly or intermittently.

Occasional control. The robot may achieve a few shoves or wedge lifts on the opponent, or brings its weapon to bear a few times. It may dodge or escape a few of its opponent’s attacks. It shows some control of its position relative to its opponent. It often has to correct its aim while driving.

Adequate control. The robot achieves several attempted attacks, and some effective attacks. It avoids some of the opponent’s attacks. it only occasionally has to correct its driving aim

Good control. The robot executes many attempted attacks or several effective attacks. It dodges or escapes regularly. It generally drives to its target without correcting its aim. It can often compensate for its opponent’s motion.

Excellent control. The robot executes many quality attacks. It rarely misses its target. It dodges or escapes regularly and recovers quickly. It is rarely out of position relative to its opponent.

Transcendent control. The robot attacks at will and can stay on its opponent. It dodges most blows or escapes almost all attempts to lift, pin, or grapple. It rarely misses and does not need to stop to take aim or correct aim.

2.2.4 Scoring Style


This is the tricky one. Style can mean totally different things to different people, and in this circumstance, this is exactly as it should be. What this category of points is to indicate is how entertaining the judge (and hopefully the audience) thought the robot was in its battling.

Style can incorporate an effective strategy, where an obviously out powered bot reliably executes a manoeuvre designed to lessen the impacts of the other bot. It can incorporate using a tactic that is particular effective against that particular style of opponent (high-siding a wedge for example, or keeping a spinner rammed into the wall to prevent it from spinning up)

A recent example of strategic "Style" was Pinscher's jaws grabbing Arachnophobia in mid-spin with magnificent timing. The crowd roared its approval which highlights what the "Style" point is all about - something indefinable that nevertheless appeals and entertains

Style can be as simple as a team having a bot that "looks cool", whether through innovative mechanical engineering, or a novel themed paint job. More typically, style points would be given to the bot that shows the greater level of creativity, engineering, uniqueness, articulation, or motion. A plain steel box on wheels would not be likely to win many style points.

The style category can be summed up with some example Robots

There are no comments on this page. [Add comment]

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional :: Valid CSS :: Powered by Wikka Wakka Wiki 1.1.6.1
Page was generated in 0.2902 seconds