I am the audience
you are the audience

k, heres a simpler one
the stated goal for robot wars is to immobilise the opponent.
score should be based on how well/close you were to achieving that.
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

who ever said the idea of robot wars was to immobilise you opponent ..our battles are fights held under controlled situation with judges present ,so what your saying is a push bot should be automatically penalised cause it cant knock out its opponent ........
_________________
Photos - http://community.webshots.com/album/154092733uokpXC
Photos- http://community.webshots.com/album/166819552PDWWqP

I think the point of each match is to dominate your opponent, if you dominate them by immobilising them then thats about as dominating as you can get.

I think all methods of dominating should get equal merit in judging, whether it is damage, wedging, ramming, flipping or whatever. As long as you dominate the match.

Personally I judge by overall feel, I do not add up points or anyhting, I decide who i think dominated the match and vote for them.

I see the ultimate goal as immobilising my apponent! There`s nothing surer than an undisputable KO that makes the judges redundant!

i live by the sayhing "a dead robot cant be judged"
_________________
Andrew Welch, Team Unconventional Robotics

DEAD RIGHT so if yah gonna build a bot with a mega killing weapon make bloody sure it does knock out your opponent real quick because if it doesnt, and it comes down to a hard fought battle ,be ready to be judged on more than just damage
_________________
Photos - http://community.webshots.com/album/154092733uokpXC
Photos- http://community.webshots.com/album/166819552PDWWqP

well said there chris
_________________
Andrew Welch, Team Unconventional Robotics

in other words build a brick and you wont have to try so hard
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Jake and I may well be biased, but the last few posts DO make it sound like the judging will favour heavily armoured wedge bots with over spinners. By the criteria above, a wedge just has to push the spinner around a bit and avoid a complete KO, while the spinner needs to win by KO or face a judging handicap because damage alone is not enough to win.

The spinners have a bit of a dilemma on how much damage is a win and how much is too much. There's been a few times where an opponent has taken some major frame breaking hits but is still moving - I have to decide if I want to face the bad feelings from a friend who has just had an expensive part like an IBC or Nicad pack totally wasted. People often say on the forum that they expect their bot to get trashed but if the bill came to $500 every time it happened, they would change their tune!

I guess what I'm saying is that if the spinners need a KO to be sure of a win, then expect to see vicious, unfriendly spinners this year.
_________________
Australian 2015 Featherweight champion
UK 2016 Gladiator champion

sounds like people need to either build tougher bots, or cheaper bots
_________________
The Engine Whisperer - fixer of things

Judges need some way to rate different attacks equally ie 1 wedge-up = 1 spinner hit = 1 ram into a wall. That's a bit simplistic but judges need to compare apples with apples In the same way, judges need to be able to compare different defence moves, whether its evasive driving or using a countermeasure.

Each team could list their attack and defence methods (keeping it realistic) and the judges keep the list in mind during the battle, noting how well and often the methods are used by each bot. That could either be counted up as points or help the 'overall feel', like Prong uses.
_________________
Australian 2015 Featherweight champion
UK 2016 Gladiator champion

Its interesting to watch the different opinions go back and forth as you guys try to find a viable alternative judging system..

It seems to me however, that the existing Damage, Control, Style, Agression categories already address most of the issues you are concerned about..

Build a barely mobile Uber-Spinner, and sure, you'll get the damage points, but will probably suffer in the control and agression area. KO your opponent and it wont matter though..

If someone fronts a armoured brick against your spinner, then yes they will likely remain mobile and get the control and agression points, but arent likely to get any damage points by wedging you about the place, and unless they've come up with a way to make an interesting brick, they probably wont get many style points either, so they pay a heavy price for their invulnerability to Knockouts.

Of course, if they manage to break you (KO) with their brick, then the brick should win, regardless of whether it caused much damage or not, because as Jeff said, you cant judge a dead bot.. If the destruction-dealing machine cant take a bit of punishment back, then it deserves to lose. KamiKaze destruction attacks might have seemed like a good idea to the Japanese, but it didnt win them a war..

If you really dont like the present system and want to change things, then the next best solution I've heard is simply to have X number of judges who simply say "I thought Bot A won" without having to justify their decision based on any criteria .

It makes for much faster judging, although it allows for more personal bias (judge A likes spinners, Judge B likes wedges or whatever), so you would need to make sure the judges were nearly always the same people, or the bias mix would change from fight to fight or event to event, which would be a bit unfair.

But I am tempted to ask "Why change the existing one ?" - whats the goal in trying to find an alternative ? Does anyone think its unfair ?
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

the current system gives 2 categories for driving and one for damage.
so if you were purely logical you should focus mainly on driving and if you manage to squese some kind of wepon on it so much the better.

I for one like watching spectacular fights.
IG's win over plan-B "cut the mustard" in that respect, win by KO and it was mostly a wedge.
basically watching 2 bricks or wedges puttering around i find rather dull. to me the "ideal" is every round ends with a KO (that presumablly is something relitivly minor that a sledge hammer and a soldering iron can fix for the next round) a judges decision is the backup plan to this and as such should attempt to reflect the primary criteria as best as possible. IE how close was it to a KO.
if you want to build a wedge or a brick/rambot get it up to the standard of singularity, post saw IG or hellbringer.
I want to encourage the weaponisation of robots.
its not too difficult i mean look at el-bravo geez even scrap had a wepon
_________________
Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets

Its true that there are two *apparent* driving categories and one for damage, however, there is another type of damage you missed.. the KO.

If your bot wants to win on damage, then you need to be able to do enough of it to disable the other bot. If you cant kill them, no matter how much visible damage you are doing, then you arent doing enough...

Some bots have ablative armour, some have air armour, and some are just tough enough to take a lickin and keep kickin.. They shouldnt be penalised for surviving just because they look a bit worse for wear..

Its the eternal struggle between arms and armour. Naturally the gunners want the judging to emphasise guns, and the armoured want the judging to emphasize survival..

Me, I want to encourage *ingenuity*..

Building a bigger cannon and a heavier shell seems futile to me.. I think less energy but more cleverly applied to weak spots is my favourite strategy (in general). Why batter up your head up against a wall when you can reach underneath it, or over it ?

Hence Scoopy and IG : neither Bot has a particularly powerful weapon, but they both scare their opponents (somewhat) because of their ability go for a weak spot with a moderately powerful weapon...

But back to the point, if you want to a be the boxing equivalent of a "heavyweight slugger", then you need to be able to KO your opponent with one or two hits, otherwise you'll get beaten by a "lightweight punch'n'jab" who can dance (drive) around you and wear you down.

As it should be IMO.. saying "but I nearly knocked him out with that hit" doesnt count if their still standing..
_________________
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people

The way this discussion is headed, Jolt, Plan-B, Orbit, and reboot should either retire or go "totally offensive" as the only real way to win.

This scoring is getting more and more off balance If people can't see the equivalence between (say) one good spinner hit and a good wedge up. For instance, If Jolt puts 5 dents in Sorry and Sorry wedges & pushes Jolt 5 times, then they are tied on points in my mind but Jolt would lose under the proposed judging, even if Jolt was to land more hits.

The idea that a wedge or ram can accumilate points gradually during a match while a spinner has to get an all or nothing KO is simply NOT even. No other country has rules like that, and for good reason. Also, what happens if 2 spinners go at it? If there is no KO, then they would have to be tied under the proposed Judging.

quote:

---

If your bot wants to win on damage, then you need to be able to do enough of it to disable the other bot. If you cant kill them, no matter how much visible damage you are doing, then you arent doing enough...

---

quote:

---

Some bots have ablative armour, some have air armour, and some are just tough enough to take a lickin and keep kickin.. They shouldnt be penalised for surviving just because they look a bit worse for wear..

---

quote:

---

Its the eternal struggle between arms and armour. Naturally the gunners want the judging to emphasise guns, and the armoured want the judging to emphasize survival..

---