Arhh. That was some real deliberate lame driving from me to conserve battery power, which in hindsight was the wrong thing to do. So if you have to watch that video, for Eleanors sake, remember she was taking it easy. But for the judging side of things put that out of your mind.

I have no probs @ all with the current rules, and I'm also content with the result from that bout. Cheers.
_________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
Albert Einstein.

Just my quick take on the Reboot VS Eleanor battle brought up by Chris and linked by Daniel.

Control: Eleanor, it was the one pushing reboot around and slowed reboot down massively when it was inverted
Aggression: Reboot had this in the bag, tapered off a bit when inverted though.
Damage: Reboot, there was crap all damage to either bot, but Reboot put a few minor chips in Eleanor armor. Eleanor is a wedge, damage is void

Reboot for the win, had more points in two out of the 3 categories.. I would say the other way if Eleanor was more aggressive.
_________________
https://www.halfdonethings.com/

O.k. - Lets get back on track ....
There is another thread for disscussion about eleanor and reboot .. This one is about potential changes to the judging in Victoria at a new event in a new arena. Although input from any other person is welcome - we really need to hear from the people who were at the builders gathering after the last event or are going to attend this Victorian event. Remember - builders with "destuctive" robots will usually favor a system that favors them ..... as will builders with non destructive robots.

Scoring on just 2 things - control and aggression favours robots that move and fight !

Remember -as a fledgling comp - we have no "professional judges" as basically required in the current approach.
for example look at these exerts from rule 2.2.2

2.2.2. Scoring Damage
"Judges should be knowledgeable about how different materials are damaged" . "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"

Consistant event judges can be hard to come by, when we often have to "rope" people in . I have seen and judged fights and those basic needs are hard to find in all voulenteers at the moment without "professional judges". If we want this comp to have a complex system that requires judges to do "pre and post" match inspections and they need to have a high experiance level with all robot types to correctly assess "damage" - then we will need some real serious voulenteer judges.

Or we could try something simple for the moment .....

TKO = WIN

else - points score based on

Aggression : is he attacking or is he running away ?
Basic definition : If the robot is moving towards the oppenent - he is attacking , if the other robot is also moving towards him , then they are both attacking.
Thought : If both bots are furiously "circling" each other for a attack position - give them both points.
"Running away" to get to distance for ramming speed shouldnt be aggression untill you move towards the other robot . If the other robot is chasing you - he should get the aggression points.

Control : Does the driver have good control of his robot.
Basic definition : The ability of the driver to direct their robot into a attack position.
Thoughts : If your bot is badly damaged and barely moving - you obvioulsly dont really have good control . Any bot that has dished out crippling damage to another robot should get control points while the cripple shouldnt. If your robot "picks up" another robot - you are in control of yours and the other guy isnt in control of his .

If a really destructive spinner cannot actually get into a fast paced moving fight - then his real tactic is waiting for you to attack him - why should it win ?

My robot "vincent" came third in Robowars 4 after winning against two nasty interstate spinners , eventually losing only to reboot and eleanor. Both spinners broke their weapons which gave my reasonably passive robot "massive" damage points. If the spinners could have matched vincents control even with their weapons dead then the results could have been different .

As I see it there are some questions we have to answer ?

a) Do ALL the affected compeditiors really think the present complex judging system is fair

b) If you do thinks its fair - are you going to voulenteer to judge it ?

c) whats really wrong with a simple system if it works ?

d) do we try to make a simple system

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

quote:

---

If a really destructive spinner cannot actually get into a fast paced moving fight - then his real tactic is waiting for you to attack him - why should it win ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick:
Isn't this biased and "unfair" for spinners? It is really not possible to have a really destructive spinner that is also a top pushy bot - the weight limit ensures that. If the statement above was policy, it would virtually eliminate strong spinners.

---

Since you are asking I will throw some of my opinions out there.
Will say it again – just light hearted opinions for the sake of discussions.

Well I am going to support your suggestions because I would prefer a simpler system.
I personally don’t like 10 pages of rules because frankly it becomes something like a Don King fight where you have a gut feeling who won but out comes the rules book to tell you why you actually lost.

I think robots should deserve and earn their wins not by finding a technicality in a big rule book that’s open for interpretation.

Rule 2.2.2 mentions judging by how deep a wound is – that’s irrelevant if there is nothing under the skin, that comment voids air armour and seems flawed to me.
An interpretation of that rule could change the outcome of a fight even though the wound made no difference to anything.
The choice of the word 'wound' in the rules is also very misleading and suggests damage when that might not be the case at all.

I also think damage is overrated as armour is meant to take the damage and if it doesn’t affect you and you keep on fighting then all the better.
If the objective is to incapacitate the other robot then you will only do that by actually damaging something on that robot, scratching or gouging has no effect on its performance so why penalise robots for using their armour as it should be used.

It will just mean you actually have to fight to win which would make it a better spectacle anyway.

Its not like damage is still not part of it as damaging a robot will affect its control and aggression and you will win if that’s the case, it just will eliminate the matches that one robot has control and aggression throughout the match but gets some scratches and gets a loss for it.

Damage sometimes becomes a BS technicality anyway or better put, a bit of a wildcard that people dig up so they can get the win over you even though they didn’t actually beat you in the arena.
These are combat robots, they don’t feel pain, they are made to get pounded and are made to fight not have boardroom discussions.

Look at how other sports function.
In a smash up derby it’s the vehicle that’s still moving at the end that wins, damage doesn’t matter.
In boxing it’s the guy that’s still standing at the end that wins even if he has broken ribs and a broken arm, so here we are with steel skinned armour being precious about cosmetic damage.

Keep it simple… man… we are here to fight, not count band-aids.

and some humour to finish off -

(Boo Hoo my robot has a scratch. OH NO, What am I going to do? Um I guess nothing, that’s what is supposed to happen)


_________________
Bots that do not destroy you, only make you stronger.

Now why does "The Black Knight" sketch by Monty Python come to mind here ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Knight_(Monty_Python)

(phpBB is being stupid about that link. either copy and paste the whole line, or click it, then click the link to the monty python article at the bottom of the incorrectly linked page


In brief, it sounds like you are suggesting removal of the damage category from the points ?

So if you leave that and the controversial style point out, then that leaves it down to just aggression and control ?
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

I like the old "ask several people who they thought won the fight" method
_________________
The Engine Whisperer - fixer of things

quote:

---

Originally posted by the moth:
Aggression : is he attacking or is he running away ?
Basic definition : If the robot is moving towards the oppenent - he is attacking , if the other robot is also moving towards him , then they are both attacking.
Thought : If both bots are furiously "circling" each other for a attack position - give them both points.
"Running away" to get to distance for ramming speed shouldnt be aggression untill you move towards the other robot . If the other robot is chasing you - he should get the aggression points.

---

I completely agree with Nexus's point regarding armour. Armour is there to be hit by spinners and other robots. Spinners like Jolt can still incapacitate a robot by damaging the armour and getting through to a wheel or other component.

Control and aggression are enough criteria to judge a fight for any type of bot.
_________________
So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems

Some things change and some things don’t.

One thing that doesn’t seem to change is if you wont to win build the nastiest spinner you can and go for the Knock Out.
_________________
Satisfaction is proportional to effort and results.

I've been tryin to read everyones long-winded (but good) posts, so I may have missed a few things.
IMHO I don't think changing the judging criteria will alter much.

Case in point: Reboot
Fights its way to first in robowars Melbourne. Rule set and judging criteria could be said unique to that event.
Battleshed. A completely different method of judging, and a totally different form of competition to the standard double elim of robowars. Reboot still wins, familiar robots are up there with it such as Stealth.

What I'm getting at is altering to your hearts content and adding in more and more complex definitions of what IS armour and what DEFINES damage will probably have very little or no effect on which robots win over which in the competitions. I may have more to say later after I read over in more detail.

_________________
( •_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

so a wedge that is half destroyed should win against the spinner that did the damage only because it can drive faster?

I like the ask a bunch of people what their "gut" says, thats what its about after all.
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

does someone want to just give me the jist of this thread, seems far too pointless to go through it myself
_________________
www.demon50s.com - Minimoto parts
http://www.youtube.com/user/HyzerGlen - Videoooozzz

I agree with dyrodium, I'm not sure changing the rules this way or that will have an effect on the outcome of 99% of the fights. though having a complex system will turn away new builders. case in point, Ultibots.
for those who do not know what Ultibots is, basically take dungeons and dragons, mix with all terrain robots and you have Ultibots.
It was such a complex system of game play, rules and judging, no one wanted a part of it.
We want to grow this sport, and for those newbies struggling with keeping there wheels on, a complex judging system is the last thing we ALL need.
Now K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) and lets make up.
_________________
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.